Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Human Rights

Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to promote the international protection of human rights.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): We take every opportunity to promote respect for human rights, through our bilateral relations and in international bodies. With our European Community partners, we shall play a leading role at the world conference on human rights due to take place in Vienna in June this year.

Dr. Wright: Do the Government and the Foreign Secretary accept that any new world order worthy of its name is not one that permits Governments to continue persecuting and terrorising their populations? Will the Government and the Foreign Secretary follow the lead taken by the French and German Foreign Ministers and by the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and start arguing for an international tribunal under the United Nations at which systematic violations of human rights can be brought to book? Is not that the kind of new world order that the world deserves?

Mr. Hogg: We have been playing a leading part in all the effective initiatives that are intended and are likely to produce an enhancement of human rights in every country where there is a human rights problem. I am not sure that the particular solution identified by the hon. Gentleman is likely to be profitable, if only because before there can be an effective trial there must be a defendant.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us welcome the fact that the international community is taking a much more robust view of article 41 of the United Nations charter, which allows intervention in the affairs of a sovereign state? Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek through the international community further urgent intervention in the appalling situation that is developing in the Sudan, where the Nuban people in particular are being systematically persecuted in a way that is likely to put their survival at risk?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. We are deeply worried by reports of possible atrocities in the

Juba area and in the Nuba hills. As my hon. Friend probably knows, a relevant resolution is going through even today at the European Commission of Human Rights in Geneva. We have taken every step that we can, bilaterally and collectively, to impose further pressure on the Sudan. I raised that precise matter recently with the incoming Sudanese ambassador, whom I saw but a few days ago.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister take this opportunity to acknowledge, particularly in a week which includes Commonwealth Day, when the focus was on human rights, the special role and importance of the Commonwealth in human rights initiatives? Bearing in mind—I doubt whether the right hon, and learned Gentleman will agree with me on this—the undoubted damage that was done to the Commonwealth during the Thatcher years due to weakness in respect of human rights in South Africa, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that at next autumn's Heads of Government conference, social and political rights will be high on the agenda and actively supported by the British Government?

Mr. Hogg: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. and noble Friend the former Prime Minister, but I accept that the Commonwealth has a role to play. However, it is important to have as broad a base for collective action as can be achieved. The United Nations and the European Commission of Human Rights are therefore even more effective, because those institutions are more broadly based than the Commonwealth.

Nagorno Karabakh

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Nagorno Karabakh.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: There has been a further recent escalation in the fighting in Nagorno Karabakh following an offensive by the Armenian forces there. We are concerned by reports of hundreds of further casualties in recent weeks. We urge the parties to the dispute to heed the call by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe for a ceasefire and to negotiate constructively in the talks being held under CSCE auspices.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those negotiations are unlikely to succeed without a ceasefire? Will he commend to both sides in the Nagorno Karabakh dispute the Atkinson peace plan, which was put to both sides in Strasbourg last September, as a realistic way forward—not least to avoid the genocide and ethnic cleansing which would undoubtedly occur in the area if the promised Azeri spring offensive were allowed to take place in the next few weeks?

Mr. Hogg: Before I commend the Atkinson peace plan to the House, I congratulate my hon. Friend on our involvement and that of our noble Friend Lady Cox in the question of Nagorno Karabakh.
I substantially agree with the peace plan. It stresses the need for a ceasefire; it stresses that there can be no change in frontiers; it makes the important point that the future of Nagorno Karabakh lies in its existence as an autonomous


region within Azerbaijan; and it emphasises the importance of a number of confidence-building measures, with all of which I agree.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I join the Minister in congratulating the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on his activities in this regard. Does the Minister agree, however, that the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe could do more and that the Muslim community in our own nation should help Muslim communities elsewhere to show the same tolerance that Christians show them here?

Mr. Hogg: I certainly think that the CSCE is the leading international organisation in terms of promoting a ceasefire and subsequent negotiations. It may, indeed, be the leading organisation if and when a peacekeeping force becomes necessary. I do not think that it makes sense for any of the parties to think that they would do well to transfer the negotiations to the United Nations; let us keep them within the CSCE.
On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, the answer may be yes; it would be necessary to explore particular methods, but it is worth thinking about.

Hong Kong

Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Governor of Hong Kong to discuss his plans for democratic reform.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I plan to meet the Governor during his visit to this country in April and to discuss with him the progress of his proposals for democracy in Hong Kong, which have our full support.

Mr. Sims: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House and the people of Hong Kong that he and the Governor are of one mind about how to implement the proposals for democratic reform in the territory? Can he reassure us that Hong Kong will be fully involved in any discussions that may take place between the British and Chinese Governments?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. As I have said, the Governor has our firm and daily support. He and the Executive Council are fully involved in making policy on this and other issues. We hope that it may soon be possible for us to do what the Governor has always wanted and start discussions with the Chinese on the constitutional position. If such discussions were to start, the British team would of course include representatives of the Hong Kong Government.

Sir David Steel: In view of the Governor's previous high-profile partisan role in politics in this country, is it not important to make it clear that his proposals enjoy not only the support of Her Majesty's Government but support across the Floor of the House? Many of us regard them as the minimum necessary to give reality to the pledge of one country, two systems.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and I agree with him. It is also relevant that the Governor's proposals continue to enjoy wide support in Hong Kong.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as evidenced by the last question, the Governor of

Hong Kong has the full support of the House in his difficult handling of the reform process with Beijing? Does he accept that although we respect the aims of the People's Republic of China in trying to develop a market economy, want its friendship and wish to pay it every courtesy, that is not by any means the same as agreeing with its every whim in every case?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We welcome and support the liberalising measures that the Government of the People's Republic are taking inside China. We want to hold to the joint declaration. We have no intention of going against the Basic Law. We believe that the Governor's proposals fall within the Basic Law. We wish to proceed in consultation and in discussion with China on this and other matters, but the points that my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick, and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) have made are valid and it is useful that they have been echoed in all parts of the House.

Dr. John Cunningham: Does the Foreign Secretary understand that we have always supported the Governor's proposals to widen the franchise and to increase democratic involvement in Hong Kong and that that remains our position? When the right hon. Gentleman says that we have to be clear about that, do we not also have a duty to make clear to the people of Hong Kong themselves, including those who sit on Legco, the exact nature of the delay that has been announced? Would it not be clearly unfair to the people of Hong Kong if that delay were to endure without some indication from the Government of the People's Republic of China as to whether, and on what terms, they are willing to return to the discussions about the future of Hong Kong?

Mr. Hurd: The Governor and Exco have delayed publication of the draft legislation in order to create the possibility and the best possible climate for the talks that we hope to achieve, but it has been made clear to all concerned that the delay cannot reasonably continue indefinitely.

South America

Mr. Bates: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the Falkland Islands to discuss relations with South American countries.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I visited the Falkland Islands from 11 to 13 February. I assured the islanders of Her Majesty's Government's determination to defend their rights to live under a Government of their own choosing. I suggested that the possible advantages of closer links with the Oriental Republic of Uruguay and Chile might merit examination.

Mr. Bates: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree with me, however, that the prosperity of the Falkland islanders depends on their being allowed fully to exploit the considerable natural resources that exist in that part of the world in terms of oil and gas reserves and fish stocks? Should they not also be allowed to develop, reaffirm and restore their sensible trading links with Argentina? Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm the


Government's commitment to British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, on which the freedoms and aspirations of its people so heavily depend?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. In the course of his visit to Argentina, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reasserted in firm and robust terms our position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It is important for the Falklands to continue to cultivate their long-standing links with Chile and Uruguay. Links with Argentina are a matter for the Falkland islanders themselves; we should not seek to exert any pressure whatever on them in that regard.

Mr. William Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Falkland islanders provided the Foreign Office with a draft letter of comfort as long ago as June last year, but that it took the Foreign Office until December to say that the letter was not acceptable and that the Foreign Office has not yet produced its own letter? Is it not now well past the time for that letter of comfort to be issued to the oil exploration companies? When does the Minister intend to make a statement about the next round of block explorations so that people will know exactly where they are going? If such a letter is not issued, the only people who will be prepared to buy the seismic investigation report will be the Argentines? None of us wants that. We want an international input.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. He is aware that we have supported the prospect of seismic exploration in Falkland Islands waters. That is now going ahead. I know that there is anxiety in the Falklands about the letter of comfort. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is under active consideration and that we hope to make a decision very soon.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Following my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's successful visit to Argentina, it emerged that the President of Argentina would welcome an invitation to pay an official visit to this country to discuss the Falkland Islands as well as the economic and political issues between our two countries. What is the Government's current position on such a visit?

Mr. Garel-Jones: During my right hon. Friend's visit to Argentina, no Argentine representations were made on that matter. As for a visit by President Menem, we have nothing definite in mind. If such a visit were to take place, it would be important for it to be carefully prepared and timed, but there would be no question of discussing, as my hon. Friend put it, the future of the Falkland Islands: their future is secure and the basis on which our excellent bilateral relations with Argentina are predicated is that sovereignty is not a matter which we are prepared to

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister be a little more precise in announcing a date for the next licensing round for oil exploration? I understand that the seismic investigation company currently operating there is doing so on a daily basis but that other exploratory companies are holding off because of the uncertainty. When the Minister finalises the licensing round, will he take into account the fact that there are other sovereign states in the area that might want to explore the sedimentary basin and which have legitimate interests in the area?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman's latter point is, of course, absolutely right. I perfectly understand the

anxiety that he and the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) expressed, but I cannot go further than I already have, which is to say that the matter is under active consideration and we expect to make an announcement very soon.

Japan

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Japan to discuss the role of his posts in furthering trade.

Mr. Hurd: I plan to visit Japan in early April. During the visit I shall talk to our ambassador about the considerable effort that our posts in Tokyo and Osaka are giving to export promotion, trade policy and other commercial work, including the encouragement of Japanese investment in this country. I shall also discuss our trading relationship with Japanese and British business men.

Mr. Viggers: May I say how warmly the visit of the Foreign Secretary and, later this year, that of the Prime Minister, will be welcomed in Japan, as they back up the efforts of our excellent ambassador and his staff in Tokyo? Does my right hon. Friend agree that relations between the United Kingdom and Japan are excellent, as exemplified by the fact that more than 40 per cent. of all Japanese investment in Europe is in the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that that investment is being made here because we are in the centre of Europe?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, our relationship is good. It needs to be maintained at all times by visits at all levels, including, and perhaps most important, business visits. My hon. Friend is right—there are now 184 Japanese-owned manufacturing companies in the United Kingdom which have created, or will create, more than 50,000 direct jobs. Those companies come here because they know that we are fully committed members of the European Community and fully committed partners in the single market, not half-in, half-out.

Mr. Enright: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that since our withdrawal from the exchange rate mechanism the rate at which the Japanese have invested in this country has slowed down considerably?

Mr. Hurd: I think that overseas Japanese investment as a whole has slowed down. I do not have the latest figures, but I am sure that anything that creates uncertainty about our future position in Europe is likely to discourage investors from outside, whether from Japan, the United States or anywhere else.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extension of UNPROFOR's mandate in former Yugoslavia under United Nations Security Council resolution 807.

Mr. Hurd: We support the extension until 31 March of the mandate of UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia under Security Council resolution 807. We look forward to


the forthcoming report by the United Nations Secretary-General on further extending and strengthening the mandate.

Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, under the renewed mandate, the United Nations or any member state decides to send further troops to former Yugoslavia, they should be deployed in Croatia to implement the Vance plan rather than being sent to Bosnia, where they could get bogged down in a difficult military situation from which it might be extremely difficult to extricate them? If they were sent to Croatia, they would reinforce the credibility of the United Nations and compel the Serbs to give up territory unlawfully seized from Croatia. That would greatly improve the chances of reaching a peaceful solution in Bosnia-Herzegovina. It cannot be done the other way around.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. There are two processes in hand—one in Croatia, to which his question and my answer referred, and the other in Bosnia-Herzegovina. They have to go forward in parallel. The credibility of the United Nations in Croatia certainly needs to be restored, which is why the existing mandate is being prolonged only until the end of the month, so that the talks that I mentioned—not simply on renewing the mandate and the United Nations effort in Croatia in support of the Vance plan, but on strengthening them and making them more robust—may be pursued. At the same time, David Owen and Cyrus Vance are energetically trying to find an agreed settlement. They have made some progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina, but they are not there yet.

Mr. Mullin: Is it not a regrettable fact that the only thing that will stop the Serbs—[Interruption]—and the Croats—misbehaving in Bosnia is the fear of military force? I do not seek to pretend that there are simple solutions to the problem—everyone knows that there are not—but in what circumstances would the British Government support military intervention by the United Nations?

Mr. Hurd: lf, as the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question suggests, he is talking about military intervention to impose a settlement or solution that has not been agreed, the answer is: in no circumstances. I can think of no Government who propose that and no circumstances in which we would support it. But if the hon. Gentleman is talking about peacekeeping—implementing and helping to make durable a solution that has been agreed—that is a different matter. I do not believe that trying to enforce a particular solution by military means, without agreement, is on.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the credibility of the United Nations in Bosnia is considerably damaged by the spectacle of troops, including British troops, standing by while men and women are killed and ethnic cleansing is carried on in front of them?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not underestimating what our troops and civilian drivers are doing. Our troops have escorted 300 convoys carrying 21,000 tonnes of supplies of food and medicines. That is just about the only good news to have come out of Bosnia this year, and we are glad to be able to continue it. We wish to continue it as long as the need is there. I do not believe that that humanitarian effort could be continued—and it

could not succeed—if the mandate were changed to force our troops to take sides in the conflict. It is because, with great skill, they have fulfilled their existing mandate that it has been successful and many people of all three communities in Bosnia-Herzegovina who would otherwise have died are alive. We now need to aim at an agreement. David Owen and Cyrus Vance have made progress. The agreement would lead to a ceasfire, and then the question of implementing the ceasefire would have to be tackled.

Mr. Wareing: Was not the ceasefire in Krajina breached on 22 January by the aggresive action of the Croatians? If a ceasefire is to hold and a more permanent peace be brought about, is not one of the vital needs in the area that the Serb minority should feel that they are protected? Would it not therefore be right to press for UNPROFOR's presence to continue at least until the peace negotiations are completed, and to give full support? I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about intensifying and strengthening the UNPROFOR presence. It is undoubtedly needed in that area.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has shifted us back to Croatia. UNPROFOR is needed on a more vigorous basis than before. It also needs to be accompanied by progress, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) said, in carrying out the Vance plan. Not only the Government of Croatia but the Serbs living in Croatia have responsibility for making that possible.

European Community (Membership)

Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards enlarging the membership of the European Community.

Mr. Garel-Jones: On 1 February, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the opening of accession negotiations with Austria, Finland and Sweden. Negotiations should start with Norway on 5 April. We shall work with our EC partners for a swift and successful conclusion to these negotiations.

Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Community can only benefit from the addition of further countries with long democratic traditions and relatively high standards of living? If the Maastricht treaty is such a bad thing, is it not amazing that so many countries wish to join the Community? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the Community should be looking not only to enlarge its membership, but in the long term to enlarge the number of countries, especially in eastern Europe, with which it has free and fair trading relationships?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. The accession of the countries I have just mentioned will help to promote a Community that is open, diverse, outward looking and not closed in on itself. Conservatives have always felt that an enlarged Community would be more dynamic and would speak with even greater authority on the world stage.
Our friends in eastern Europe want trade above all. It is extremely important in the coming months that the United Kingdom and other member states, even in these


difficult and recessionary times, should continue to fly the free trade flag inside the Community and in Community relations with the rest of the world.

Mr. O'Hara: Will the Minister give a statement of unequivocal support for the entry of Cyprus into the European Community? Will he confirm that the resolution of the Cyprus problem will not be made a prior condition?

Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Cyprus applied for membership of the European Community in 1991. The Commission is preparing opinions on that application. The European Council has already decided to strengthen relations with Cyprus by building on the existing association agreements. It would not be right for me to anticipate the Commission's opinion. We shall have to wait and see what the Commission's opinion is.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the meeting of the Nordic Council the week before last clearly demonstrated that parliamentarians from Scandinavian countries, those attending from the Baltic Council and those representing the Commonwealth of Independent States, led by Russia, are coming together as an important group to which membership of the Community is now a vital link? Does he agree, therefore, that we should facilitate the process and that it would be greatly expedited if we put the Maastricht treaty behind us?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. It has been our position throughout our membership of the Community that it must be open to democratic states that can fulfil the conditions of membership. That has been the British position for some time and that is why we were especially pleased that at the Edinburgh Council, for the first time, the goal of European Community membership for the new democracies in eastern Europe was agreed at European Council level. It goes without saying that the applicants from the European Free Trade Association with which we are now negotiating would regard it as not only a disaster for the European Community but as a disaster for themselves if the Maastricht treaty were not speedily ratified.

Mr. Cryer: Has the Minister ensured that the EC's position on the common agricultural policy, for example, is made clear to new entrants? Has he made it clear that approximately 70 per cent. of all EC expenditure goes on that wasteful means of food production which has produced nightmarish levels of pollution through the pouring of pesticides and insecticides on the land, which has in turn polluted our water courses? Has he made it clear that the CAP costs every family in this country roughly £18 extra each week in the family food budget? My guess is that the propaganda from the Common Market tends to paint a very different picture from the bleak reality of that disintegrating organisation.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman can assume, as indeed can the House, that the applicant EFTA countries are not only highly developed democracies but very sophisticated countries. They have made their own calculation about the benefit of Community membership and specifically of the common agricultural policy. It is faintly patronising of the hon. Gentleman to give advice to four such countries.

European Community (National Parliaments)

Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary fo State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of the areas of policy which remain within the exclusive competence of national parliaments in the EC.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The Community exercises only such powers as are delegated to it by the member states. Any powers not so delegated remain with the member states. It is not possible to draw up an exhaustive list.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not it an outrage that the Minister has not even tried to answer the question? Does he accept that if we go for the Maastricht treaty, almost every single remaining area of exclusive competence will disappear apart from, in my calculation, grammar schools, the council tax and the level of income tax in so far as it is part of an overall level of taxation approved by central Community institutions? Does not the Minister think that he has a duty to tell people the facts before they vote?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not agree with my hon. Friend's calculation. Indeed, I believe the opposite to be the case. I think that in a number of areas where we have found deficiencies in the Single European Act the Maastricht treaty moves to restrain those deficiencies and to take the Community in the direction in which we wish to see it going. I will not detain the House with a whole list of examples. Let me give just one. In health, while we have recognised the need to co-ordinate research and public information on health protection concerning things like AIDS, the Maastricht treaty provides specifically for the Community not to involve itself in health care because there is no reason why it should do so. The Maastricht treaty specifically constrains Community action in that area, whereas, under the existing treaty, we were under some danger of what my hon. Friend would call creeping competence. There are many such examples littered across the treaty.

Mr. Skinner: Does not the Minister understand that while he and Ministers like him on the Front Bench, as well as other members of the chattering classes and other politicians, talk about the glories of Maastricht and the Common Market in particular, 70 per cent. of the masses outside do not want the Maastricht treaty, because they can see what is happening on the ground floor, with neo-fascist parties being set up in Germany, Italy and France, and with a former SS leader getting massive support in the German elections at the weekend? Together with mass unemployment, that is the truth about the Common Market of today. The halcyon days are over.

Mr. Garel-Jones: So far as the House is concerned at any rate, the hon. Gentleman certainly belongs to the chattering classes. The only time recently that I saw a substantial, albeit paltry, turnout of the National Front in this country—I am sure that my hon. Friends who were there were as shocked as I was—was at the so-called referendum rally in Trafalgar square. I gather that that was well attended, not least by such people.

Mr. Churchill: Given the strong attachment of the EFTA nations to their national sovereignty, is not it clear that once the enlargement of the Community becomes a reality, the dreams of those who would create federal palaces in the air will slam against the buffers of reality?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The accession of EFTA countries will do two things. First, it will produce a number of countries that are net contributors to the budget and therefore likely to take the realistic attitude that this Government take. Secondly, my hon. Friend is right; it will reinforce the position of those of us who believe that we are building in the European Community not a unitary structure and a unitary state but a union of co-operation between member states.
Equally, I do not think that we should be naive. These countries are independent foreign states. They will fight for their own interests. Of course, we do not expect their interests to coincide with ours in every particular, but, on the fundamentals that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) mentions, he is absolutely right.

Mr. George Robertson: While we are talking about the rights of national parliaments, what about the right of this House to make a decision about the Government's opt-out from the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty? Does the Minister not recognise that the stinging humiliation suffered by the Government on Monday this week should tell Ministers at least one thing—that if they attempt to use legal trickery or sleight of hand to ignore or override the carrying of amendment No. 27 on the social protocol, it will be seen at home and abroad as a betrayal of this House, this Parliament and parliamentary democracy

Mr. Garel-Jones: Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify the treaty that we agreed with our 11 partners in the European Community. If the hon. Gentleman had wished to have the treaty altered, the Labour party should have won the election. The Labour party did not win the election and this Government's mandate to ratify the treaty that we agreed with our partners is supported by not only a vote in the House but an overwhelming vote in favour of the Conservative party at the last general election.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the applicant parliaments in the European Free Trade Association which wish to join the Community know only too well that they already have for their people the economic benefits of the Community through the European economic area? Their precise reason for applying to join the Community is that they want to be part of and influence its political structure, just as we left the European Free Trade Association in 1973 to join the political structure of the European Community.
Is it not therefore absolutely vital that the United Kingdom ratifies the Maastricht treaty, which is the basis on which the other countries are applying, and then plays a leading part in influencing the intergovernmental conference in 1996?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is right. The European economic area gives EFTA countries the benefits of the single market. Those countries, like us, see in the Community an ability to enhance their influence as sovereign states. That is why they are as anxious as we are for the Maastricht treaty to be ratified as soon as possible and for their negotiations to proceed so that they may become full members of the Community.

Israel

Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Israel regarding the middle east peace process.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently saw the Israeli Foreign Minister in Brussels on I February. I have recently seen the Israeli Ministers of Housing and Justice, and I shall be seeing the deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Beilin, tomorrow. There is no doubt that the Israeli Government wish to resume peace negotiations as soon as possible. We have reminded them that this resumption will be facilitated by further Israeli moves to resolve the problem of the Palestinian deportees and concrete measures to improve the human rights situation in the occupied territories.

Mr. Spellar: Will the Minister be discussing with Israeli Ministers the opening of talks with the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the meeting that he had with them yesterday? At the meeting yesterday, did he clearly demand that the Palestine Liberation Organisation seeks to end the violence and terror in the occupied territories?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I will indeed be talking with Mr. Beilin about the sorts of reasons that caused us to see Mr. Husseini, the Palestine Liberation Organisation representative, yesterday. At yesterday's meeting, I talked about the need for the Israeli Government to take confidence-building measures within the occupied territories to reduce the weight of the occupation. I made it plain to Mr. Husseini and the PLO representative that it would be much easier for the Israeli Government to take that action if violence in the occupied territories could be stopped.

Mr. Sumberg: Contact with the PLO was suspended two years ago because, at that time, when the lives of British troops were at risk, the first people to rush to Baghdad to support Saddam Hussein were PLO representatives and Yasser Arafat. Has my right hon. and learned Friend any evidence to put before the House that the PLO's attitude has changed or, given a repetition of the Gulf conflict, would the PLO behave in exactly the same way?

Mr. Hogg: I think that we can agree that a resumption of the bilateral talks is a matter of enormous importance for the peace of the middle east and, thus, the world. Her Majesty's Government felt that it was important to communicate that view as swiftly and powerfully as possible to the Palestinians and the PLO. That is why we had the meeting yesterday.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the resumed ministerial contacts between the Government and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Does the Minister agree that, in order to promote the peace process in a firm and confident move, it would be as well for the Israeli Government—as signatories to the fourth Geneva convention—to accept the Palestinian recommendation to end deportations and all other contraventions of that convention?

Mr. Hogg: I have made the point to the Israeli Ministers, whom I have met on a number of occasions, that the fourth Geneva protocol applies to the occupied territories and that the policies of the Israeli Government


constitute a breach of that fourth protocol in a number of inportant respects. I have also said that the weight of the occupation, and some of the specific policies employed there, stand in the way of a successful outcome for the peace talks—at the same time, so does the violence being practised by the Palestinians.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I commend the Government for at last recognising the PLO at ministerial level again following the decision in the Knesset to allow citizens of that country to talk to PLO representatives. Will my right hon. and learned Friend continue to do all that he can to support traditional, secular Palestinian political action as a way of checking Islamic fundamentalism in that part of the world?

Mr. Hogg: The answer to my hon. Friend's specific question is: yes, I will. The thought lying behind my hon. Friend's question is important—if the present Palestinian leadership, represented by Mr. Husseini, is unable to make obvious progress, it is likely to be supplanted by a fundamentalist party. Therefore, I say to the Israelis when I meet them, and through you, Madam Speaker, that it is important that they make rapid progress on reaching an agreement and lifting the weight of the occupation in the occupied territories.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not sad but predictable that Dr. Hannah Ashrawi announced in Jerusalem today that the Palestinians will not be returning to the peace talks in April? Is not one of the principal causes for that decision the regrettable illegal expulsion and deportation of the 400 or so Palestinians by the Israeli Labour Government? When the Minister meets Foreign Minister Beilin—as I shall—will he make it clear that a rapid solution to that problem will facilitate a return of the legitimate voice of the Palestinians to the peace negotiations? Will he also join me in making it clear to Mr. Husseini—as I shall when I meet him shortly—that the appalling descent into sectarian violence in Israel is deplored by all friends of Israel, as well as supporters of the legitimate claims of the Palestinians, who want to see peace in the middle east?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and am glad that he, too, is to see Mr. Husseini and the London representative of the PLO. The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the deportation stands as an obstacle to further discussions. I hope that the Israeli Government will build on what they have already done to comply with resolution 799. I would also go further and say that I think that it is desirable—indeed, essential—that the Israeli Government make it plain that they do not intend to resort to the policy of deportation but will look urgently at other ways of lifting the weight of the occupation.

Middle East

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions with the new United States Administration on the middle east peace process.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the peace process with the United States Secretary of State when he saw him in Brussels on 26 February following Mr. Christopher's visit to the middle east. It is clear that the

new United States Administration are engaged very seriously in the peace process. They have our full support.. We are urging all sides to resume the negotiations as soon as possible.

Mr. Dykes: Does the Minister share my impression from a recent visit that millions of ordinary, decent Israelis and Palestinians are sick to death of the endless saga of violence and killing? They are no longer interested in jogging backwards 30 or 40 years to see who was originally right or wrong. If partition was right in 1948 and was supported by the whole international community, does not that same community, together with Israelis and Palestinians, now have a duty to work to restore that position between the parties? In further contacts with the Americans, may we please make sure that at long last the American Administration take a decisive lead in that context?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right. There is a recognition in the state of Israel that the policies pursued in the past, especially the policy of settlement, are not in the interests of the people of Israel. I think that there is also a recognition by the Palestinians that the time has come to reach agreement with the state of Israel. One can detect similar thinking in the adjoining Arab states. That is why it is so important for the parties to go into the bilateral talks again as soon as possible.

Mr. Galloway: While I welcome the Government's decision yesterday to resume ministerial contacts, may I ask the Minister to make it clear to the United States that a similar sign from the United States Administration to the secular, moderate Palestinian leadership would be even more valuable in getting the talks back on the road? I, too, was recently in the area. The position of Hannah Ashrawi, Faisal Husseini and even Arafat is being consistently undermined by the failure of the Israel Government to implement resolution 799, to allow themselves to be forced to do so, or to desist, while talking about violence, from the reign of terror that has been waged in the occupied territories since early December. Tens of children have been shot dead during that time. President Clinton could do a great deal to bring the peace negotiations forward if he sent the same kind of message as that sent by the British Government yesterday.

Mr. Hogg: The United States is doing a great deal to bring the peace process forward. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Secretary of State Christopher recently visited the region and took a letter from President Clinton making it plain to everybody that the President and the United States collectively intend to be a full partner—I use the phrase that was employed—in the peace process. I know that that statement was a great encouragement to Mr. Husseini and others.

European Community (Membership)

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he intends to take to facilitate the entry of Malta to the EC.

Mr. Garel-Jones: We agreed at last year's Lisbon European Council, and confirmed at Edinburgh, that the Community should develop and strengthen relations with Malta by building on the association agreement and membership application and by developing political


dialogue. When the Commission issues its opinion on Malta's application, the Council of Ministers will consider how to proceed.

Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Malta is an independent, sovereign and prosperous state, and that it is as European as Greece, as democratic as France and is of similar size to Luxembourg? The state of Malta has traditionally looked to Europe. In view of that and the long and strong bonds of friendship between the United Kingdom and Malta, what additional action will my right hon. Friend take to facilitate the early entry of Malta to the Community?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says about our traditional links and friendship with Malta. Those links were underlined by a visit by Her Majesty the Queen last year. I also agree with what my hon. Friend says about Malta's suitability as a European sovereign state for accession to the Community. We must wait for the Commission's report on the membership application. That will identify the issues arising from the application and they will include, no doubt, the institutional aspects of accession by small states. When we have received that opinion we can consider how best to proceed. I think that Malta could help itself if it were able to meet more fully the obligations under the present association agreement, particularly by moving more quickly towards a common customs tariff.

Mr. Mackinlay: While I associate myself with the plea by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on behalf of Malta, will the Minister tell the House what advantage has been gained and what progress has been made towards extending the European Community by admitting the central European states of Poland, Hungary—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is a long way from Malta. We must move on.

Journalists (Middle and Eastern Europe)

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on media training for journalists from middle and eastern Europe.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The media have an important role to play in the process of political and economic reform in central Europe. The know-how fund has therefore set up a number of projects to train journalists and other media personnel from the area. Major programmes have been managed for the know-how fund by the BBC World Service and the Thomson Foundation, covering Poland, Hungary, the former Czecholsovakia, Romania and Bulgaria.

Mr. Bottomley: May I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend that if all 650 projects under the know-how fund are well managed by organisations as good as the World Service, we can be proud of the £50 million that we are putting into that work?

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I think that his point is well made.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister make it quite clear that the services of Mr. John Birt will not be used on the courses for journalists to teach the comrades how to keep their zlotys and roubles out of the hands of the taxman?

Mr. Hogg: I would not choose to make such a trivial point.

Mr. Butcher: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given Russia's awful problems at the moment, the last thing the Russian people need is a rampant fourth estate? Does he further agree that the term tragedy is not an understatement as there is a high risk of immense problems and sadnesses emerging inside Russia which should be the top priority of the Foreign Office? Perhaps that should exercise the bulk of our energies instead of something that historians may see as a side-show around a town called Maastricht.

Mr. Hogg: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend who makes a serious point about the turmoil in Russia. That is true, but as much as we may sometimes dislike the press, we must recognise that a free and independent press is an essential condition in a pluralistic and democratic country—[Interruption.] We are doing our best to have one here. Although it is sometimes not all that easy to live with, I am in favour of a free and independent press. I think that is as true of Russia as it is of anywhere else in the world of which I have ever heard.

India

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in respect of relations with India.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): During my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's visit to India in January the Indian Prime Minister assured us of three things: that he attached importance to respect for human rights, that allegations of human rights abuses were investigated, and that those responsible for wrongdoing were punished.

Mr. Ainsworth: I am sure that we join the Minister in welcoming those moves and the proposals by the Indian Government to set up a human rights commission. However, until the Indian Government are prepared to open up the entire country to international organisations such as Amnesty International, there will never be confidence on human rights issues; stories of human rights abuses will continue to trouble people here and abroad. Will the Government continue to press the Indian Government to open up the entire country to the scrutiny of those international organisations?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We do press the Indian Government on that. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Indian Government are in touch with Amnesty International and India will be open to visits by its representatives, except in areas where their presence may cause tension.

Mr. Jessel: As the most important human right is the right to stay alive, and as India has an entirely exceptional problem with terrorism, which causes death, and as the


Indian Government are quick to investigate and punish acts of violence, should not India have the complete understanding and sympathy of the House?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is most important that we recognise that human rights abuses and tragedies in India have most certainly occurred through terrorism, but terrorists are not accountable to the democratically elected people, whereas the Indian security forces are.

Israel

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now propose that the United Nations should apply sanctions against Israel in order to enforce resolution 799; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The United States Secretary of State's visit to the middle east has, we hope, paved the way for the resumption of the peace process. We hope that the Government of Israel will now build on the important first steps they have taken towards complying with Security Council resolution 799. We continue to believe that any move towards sanctions would be unhelpful at this juncture.

Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree that while so many of the Palestinian deportees are still in the wilderness —and it looks as though they will remain there for several months—there is a danger that as they drop out of the immediate news they will cease to have the cutting edge that they have previously exercised in negotiations?
If the problem is not resolved and if those people are not given their human rights and restored to their homes, at what point would the Minister agree, first, that the United Nations should impose sanctions and, secondly, that action should be taken to ensure that Israel complies with resolution 799?

Mr. Hogg: We have made our position quite clear. We believe that the deportation was quite wrong and we have said so directly to the Israeli Government. Indeed, I shall do so again tomorrow when I meet the Israeli deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Beilin. What the Israeli Government have done thus far in compliance with resolution 799 is an important first step, but we hope that they will build speedily on that. It is in their interests to do so because while substantial numbers of deportees are out of Israel, that fact will stand in the way of a successful outcome to bilateral talks.

Fishing Incidents (Protests)

Dr. Gavin Strang: (by private notice): To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the disruption caused by French and British fishermen.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): French fishermen started their disruptive action, in protest at third-country imports, two to three weeks ago. They quickly turned to indiscriminate action against supplies coming into France from all sources, including the United Kingdom. On 21 February, they turned back a Brittany Ferries boat trying to enter Roscoff. On 23 February, they ran riot at Rungis market, causing £2·5 million of damage. There followed a series of violent actions in French ports against lorries carrying fish from Britain and the premises of importers dealing in fish from Britain. The rioting has continued, most recently at Nantes.
I and my ministerial colleagues have been in constant touch with the French to protest at that action and to ask them to bring the offenders to book, to ensure compensation and to restore free trade. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has personally raised the matter twice at Foreign Affairs Councils. My Department has been repeatedly in touch with the French, both directly and through the embassy in Paris.
At the end of last week, we succeeded in securing undertakings from the French that they would protect consignments of fish and shellfish sent by ferry from the United Kingdom to French ports. We are giving notice of those consignments. Fishermen are invited to contact our fisheries officers at their own ports to give that notice, which is telexed to the embassy in Paris and then communicated to the prefect so that he can ensure that he has sufficient forces available to protect those consignments. We have set up that mechanism, which is now working. Twenty-seven requests were made on Monday and a small number yesterday.
I believe that the arrangements would be effective, on the basis of experience we had in working in a similar fashion when problems arose over trade in lamb some years ago. Hon. Members will know that we are not entirely innocent in the matter of dealing with problems of this sort. Ministers will continue to follow the situation daily and will not hesitate to intervene. It is utterly repugnant to see the wilful and malicious destruction of food. Fish is a living and finite resource. There is a market for it, and the destruction of a resource on which livelihoods depend is stupid and morally offensive.
Unfortunately, a few British fishermen have now started action of the same kind. This action has not been sponsored by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations, to whose chief executive I spoke a few moments ago to confirm that fact. Incidents occurred on 8 March in Peterhead, where Scottish fishermen boarded a Russian vessel and poured diesel oil on cod, and in Grimsby, where local fishermen held up a lorry carrying fish landed in Wales by a French vessel and prevented it from being put on the market. It is worth recording that some of the fish destroyed by French fishermen was landed in Britain by French vessels and trucked to France.
In Milford Haven this morning, local fishermen attacked a local consignment of French cod as it was being brought to land. I totally condemn this action also. There is no earthly purpose in our reading the riot act to the French Government, as we have done, about action of this kind if we then see it in the United Kingdom also. The same rules apply for everybody.
We shall do all we can to see that the law enforcement authorities in this country act firmly when fishermen attempt to take the laws into their own hands, and we shall keep up the strongest pressure on the French to do the same. These incidents raise questions of law and order, but there is also an economic aspect. There is certainly a problem on the fish market. There are several causes. One part of the problem is certainly imports—notably, imports of Russian cod. The Russian fleet is fishing much closer to home because currency uncertainty in the former Soviet Union makes it unprofitable to carry fish over long distances, and there is considerable barter for fish that the Russian market needs.
A second element, which we must not overlook, is the large volume of landing by our own fleet in February. This is a matter that fishermen, notably through the producer organisations, must tackle. Indeed, we have been talking to the producer organisations about means of addressing some of these problems. It is important that catches be phased, and it is important to market fish of the quality that consumers want.
The Community has taken steps to deal with the problem of imports. Minimum import prices for cod and a short list of other species were brought into effect on 26 February. Those prices are at the same level as the withdrawal prices that exist to ensure fairer prices to our own producers. In fact, they are analogous to measures that we took some time ago to protect the Scottish farm salmon market against imports from Norway.
I believe that this is an appropriate and measured response to what is still an unclear situation. I know that there are those who would like us to tighten up on imports to an even greater extent. The House must be aware that such measures, while they might be welcome to fishermen, affect the interests of processors, who import large quantities of cod and similar species every year from outside the Community. I must, of course, balance the interests of fishermen against those of importers, processors and consumers.
The Fisheries Council will meet in Brussels next week. Ministers there will look at all the issues involved and will consider what further action might be taken. We do not want a fish war, which would cause loss to everybody. We must assume our responsibility to prevent such a war, and we shall hold the French Government to theirs.

Dr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that the current level of quayside fish prices is destroying livelihoods and jobs on the catching side of the industry? Will he acknowledge the frustration felt by fishermen when, after days at sea, they land fish on the quayside only to have it withdrawn from the market to be turned into animal feed at prices that are inadequate to cover their costs and give them an income for their labour? Is he aware that that frustration turns to anger when the fishermen believe that their traditional markets are being lost to imports at prices that are hopelessly uneconomic?
To understand the frustrations of the industry is in no way to condone illegal protest action. I should be surprised


if the House were not united in deploring the incident at Peterhead, when diesel oil was poured on to fish in a Russian trawler. Such actions do not help the industry; they set it back by undermining public support for the cause. But surely the Minister must recognise that no industry is as tightly controlled by Government as the fishing industry. It is Governments who share out the fish in the sea. It is Governments who set the quotas and determine the conservation measures. Therefore, it is surely right that fishermen look to Government to resolve the crisis.
To that end, I wish to put several constructive points to the Minister. First, will he carry out an investigation into fish prices in the shops, which do not reflect the sharp drop in fish prices on the quayside? Is it the fish merchant or is it the supermarket and the shop which are buying cheap and selling dear?
Secondly, will the Minister set aside the review of the function of the Sea Fish Industry Authority and ask it to commence a major fish promotion campaign? It must be in the interests of consumers and of the industry to encourage an increase in consumption of this healthy food.
Will the Minister accept that the autonomous tariff quotas set by the EC for fish imports and due to come into operation on 1 April have been set too high? I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says about the interests of the fish processors, but we must recognise that we have a crisis in quayside prices.
The Minister must appreciate that the minimum import arrangements introduced by the European Commission two weeks ago are not working, largely because Russian fish, as a result of the declaration of fraudulent weights, are being imported at prices well below the reference prices set by the Commission.
I welcome the response that the Minister has received from the French Government, but does he agree that the French action had a severe effect on the British market because it prevented the movement of fish to destinations not only in France but throughout Europe? Because of the damage that has been done to the British market, will he closely monitor the situation to ensure that the action by the French Government is effective?
Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that this is one more example of too many boats chasing too few fish, and that we want a much enlarged decommissioning scheme?
Finally, will the Minister convene a summit of all the interests in the British fishing industry, including the catchers and the processors, to see whether they can agree some collective action which will help to resolve the crisis?

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the essential distinction between law and order issues and economic issues. It is important to distinguish between the two. He said that the House would condemn the breaches of law and order, and I am sure that that is the case and it is proper that that should be so.
A large amount of imports come in frozen block form into the processing industry. Less comes in in fresh form, and that predominantly goes to the catering trade.
We have considered the level of prices. It was this Government who asked the Commission to convene the meeting which led to the minimum import prices. We have supplied information on the level and we shall continue to furnish that to Brussels.
If further action is needed, the Government will not hesitate to sponsor that action. For example, we must

examine whether minimum import prices should apply to Alaskan pollock, which is one of the substitute cod species. That matter will no doubt be before the Council next week.
We reviewed recently the question of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. It has sufficient resources to pursue an advertising campaign. That is a matter for the industry, and the leaders of the catching industry are represented on the authority's council.
Autonomous tariff quotas will be finally decided at the Council next week. There was an agreement in anticipation of the economic area coming into effect, but it had not come into effect because of the Swiss vote. Therefore, we have some provisional arrangements in place. We would like somewhat lower quantities for haddock, for which we think there is not a case for a quota, and for cod. We must remember, though, that there are also catching opportunities—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) will be aware of that. As part of that arrangement, roughly 10,000 tonnes of cod are available, largely for the Humberside fleet, in north Norway. We must ensure that, because it is an important element.
Minimum import prices have barely got under way. We will monitor them closely. Our authorities have instructions to enforce them effectively. The French action had the effects to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which is why we took firm action. It affected also ordinary fishermen who wanted to land their fish directly in France, because there is a lot of direct landing in overseas ports.
It was not just that there were too many boats chasing too few fish. The quotas were very large, many boats were tied up because of very bad weather in January, and there was a lot of fishing activity at the end of that month—simultaneous landings, which did nothing for the market place situation. I am constantly in touch will all elements of the industry—with part of it yet again tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before I call any other hon. Members, may I say that I am seeking very brief questions and very brief answers. I shall not allow this private notice question to run for very long.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the Government's efforts in respect of France and their representations to the French Government. Although we cannot condone law breaking—I make it clear to the Minister that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation condemns the incidents at Peterhead—there is undoubtedly a problem with market instability. Do the Government have the information and data on which to base a judgment as to the cause of the trouble?

Mr. Curry: The problem has three causes—imports that are difficult to tie down, probably coming from the former Soviet Union; a large amount of fish caught by British fishermen on the market; and some consumer reaction after a number of years in which very high fish prices obtained in the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Harris: While I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister that the few fishermen who sunk to the level of the French in adopting particular tactics unfortunately damaged the justice—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What is wrong with it?

Mr. Harris: Everything is wrong with it?
Although those fishermen damaged the justice of their cause, is my hon. Friend the Minister aware of the deep anger and frustration felt by the whole industry in this deplorable situation in which exports to France are being blocked? Has my hon. Friend the Minister considered with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General taking a case against France to the European Court of Justice to uphold the principles of the single European market?

Mr. Curry: We will explore all opportunities to uphold the principles of the single European market. At the moment I am concerned to provide redress for those who have suffered injustice, and the right for trade for those who want to trade.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: No one condones violence, but the problem in Grimsby was caused neither by violence nor by the destruction of fish. It was caused by the justified anger of British fishermen at seeing French vessels catch fish in British waters and then bring it on to the British market, while Grimsby fishermen were denied access to the French market. The price problem is caused by imports, not reference prices. It cannot be tackled by reference prices; it can only be tackled by dealing with Russian imports as a matter of dumping.
Does the Minister accept that the common fisheries policy must be based on two principles—access to markets, which is now threatened by the French, and a level playing field? Now that the French Government are to give £36·8 million in aid to the French industry, will the Minister get that aid stopped or provide similar aid to the British industry to prevent it from going bankrupt?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that the House will shortly consider a statutory instrument that will make available £25 million for decommissioning.
It is not purely a question of imports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have received letters from a number of his constituents who are very concerned about the prospect of increasing import prices because of the importance to the processing industry. There is a balance to be struck.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: My hon. Friend the Minister said in his statement that the same rules must apply throughout the Community. Is he aware that that is not enough? They must not only apply

Mr. Curry: Yes. I am not able to send in the SAS, but there are times when I think that it would do a very good job—and not against British fishermen.

Mr. Robert Hughes: It is generally agreed that we should feel angry with the French and with our own people—whoever they are—for damaging fish. Does the Minister realise, however, that we are in almost exactly the position in which we feared we would find ourselves when we were discussing the common fisheries policy last year? The problem is the sudden increase in the quota as against the two months at the end of the year when no fishing was allowed.
Will the Minister follow up the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang)? There must be round table discussions between the catching side and the processors to bring order and

regulation into the market; otherwise we shall stagger on, month after month, with the fishermen feeling angry that they cannot obtain the prices that they want and the merchants falling out with them because they think that they are on the opposite side. In fact, they are all part of the same industry. Will the Minister get them together and thrash out the matter?

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman will know, some fishing went on at the end of last year, even if it was "black" fishing. I am already having discussions with the producer organisations, and I shall continue to do so. When I find an opportunity to get all sides together to try to reach a sensible arrangement, I shall do that as well, provided that it will protect trade.

Mr. John Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the fishermen of Poole are frustrated by, first, the inability of the French Government to enforce the law, and, secondly, the ability of our Government to impose conservation measures that are not observed on the continent? They see French fishermen catching fish off Poole which can be delivered in Cherbourg, while they are not allowed to land similar catches. No wonder there is a problem. Can we get it sorted out once and for all?

Mr. Curry: No restrictions currently apply to British fishermen in regard to days at sea. There is a free market in fish; the problem is getting that over to the French. I entirely understand the anger of British fishermen, including fishermen in Poole. The question is how they should express that anger.

Mr. Alex Salmond: No one condones the destruction of fish, but does the Minister accept that he has a responsibility for the current destabilisation of the fish market? Does he understand the desperation of people who spend long periods at sea and then find that they cannot obtain a price on the quayside for the fish they have caught? Is it not ludicrous that good-quality fresh fish is being used for fishmeal, while imports that are often of poor quality are dominating the market? What will the Minister do about it?

Mr. Curry: It is patently nonsense to say that I should not have come back with a doubling of the haddock quota. The industry wanted that. As I have said, there is a problem of imports in the market place, but that is not the whole problem. We must strike a balance between the interests of all who are involved in the industry, and that is what we are trying to do. It is simply naive to suppose that a magic wand can be waved to make everyone agree on a course of action. There are conflicts in the industry, but we must achieve a balance: that is what politics is about.

Mr. Keith Mans: I support what my hon. Friend has said, particularly what he said about low fish prices. That is illustrated by the number of firms that have gone bankrupt recently in my port of Fleetwood. What still needs to be done to implement the decommissioning schemes as soon as possible?

Mr. Curry: The statutory instruments implementing the decommissioning schemes and relating to days at sea will be laid before the House in due course. I do not think that my hon. Friend will have too long to wait.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will appreciate the fear that is felt by some of the most hard-working people in our community at a time when their livelihood is being taken away and they have no chance of alternative employment. As for the question of exports to France and beyond, is there any means of compensating our fishermen for the financial losses that they have experienced, and may continue to experience until the French Government are prepared to act? Perhaps the French should be asked to compensate our fishermen.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: the French should be asked to do that. I am asking the present Government, and I shall ask the next.

Mr. Roger Gale: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), does my hon. Friend accept that Kent fishermen now feel that insult has been added to injury? Not only are they denied access to foreign ports; the fish that are being landed here, undermining the domestic market, are sometimes part of an illegal quota caught by foreign ships off British shores. Will my hon. Friend commend the work of the fisheries protection fleet, and will he ensure that action will be taken in every complaint that the fleet brings to the Ministry?

Mr. Curry: I confirm absolutely that we get very good service indeed from the fisheries protection fleet and we benefit from the fleet's experience of where to look when it is looking for offenders.

Mr. Barry Jones: Violence is wrong, but when considering how this problem affects Wales, will the Minister bear in mind the very serious unemployment there and the fact that there is no alternative work for these people? Does not the Minister know that the closure of defence establishments in Pembroke means that local people feel that what jobs there are should be protected? Will he bear that in mind when he considers the problem?

Mr. Curry: I am aware that fishing is an activity that goes well beyond the catching sector and that a large number of jobs are involved onshore and in the coastal communities. I wish to make sure that all those people are able to pursue their livelihoods in peace and freedom.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is the Minister aware that I represent the largest number of shell fishermen in Britain—those on the south Devon coast? Is he also aware that many crab ships have been turned back at Roscoff and that there are tens of thousands of pounds worth of crabs rotting on the sea bed because they have had to be jettisoned? Is he further aware that a number of crab fishermen are losing their livelihoods and that one or two of them may even be going bankrupt? What does the Minister intend to do to make sure that that does not happen? What does he intend to do to get the money out of the French?

Mr. Curry: We shall take every action that we can to get the money out of the French. The important point is that that trade should resume as soon as possible. We cannot, however, send our police force over to France to do that, whatever our inclinations may be. The French have got to assert authority. I shall be taking up that matter with the Government who are in power now and with whatever Government may succeed them.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: May I emphasise the point that was made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie)—that the vast majority of Scottish fishermen deeply deplore the illegal action of a very small number of men in Peterhead? We do not even know if all those men are fishermen, so let us not condemn Scottish fishermen out of hand.
The problem, surely, is the common fisheries policy, which has always been the poor relation of the common agricultural policy, and the fact that there are flagrant violations of the CFP rules by French fishermen and others, with the collusion of their Governments. Only when all European Community fishermen adhere to the rules shall we have a sensible CFP. Does the Minister not agree that that is the message that he should be taking to the Council next week?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that I was very careful indeed not to suggest at any point that fishermen as a whole were behind, supported or condoned this action. I repeat that I do not believe that that is the case. It would be stupid if that were to be the case. It is equally true that there are certain strains of lawlessness and law breaking in sections of the fishing community right across the European Community. They are doing someone else out of a job, whether it is by "black" fishing, or illegal fishing, or misreporting, or blocking trade. None of that is any good for people's livelihoods or for the long-term future of the fishing industry.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: When my hon. Friend meets his French counterparts and the fisheries Ministers next week, will he add to his long list of complaints that of the landing and sale in French ports of undersized fish? That has long frustrated the fishermen of Hastings and Rye and has added to the anger they feel about the instability of the market for fish.

Mr. Curry: I shall certainly do that, though my hon. Friend will appreciate that my French opposite number is somewhat difficult to get hold of at the moment as he is campaigning. However, when I have a French fisheries Minister to talk these matters over with for some time, I shall certainly raise that issue.

Mr. Skinner: Has not the Minister got a cheek to attack those fishermen in Britain who destroyed fish in order to try to protect their own livelihoods when he, as a Minister, along with the rest of them, has destroyed during the past 14 years millions of tonnes of food because of the common agricultural policy? If he really wants to take on the French, why does he not tell his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to tell them that the French are not going to sell electricity to Britain and that we are going to cut the interconnector and save six British pits? That is the way to deal with them.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has ranged rather widely, but for people who depend on fish to destroy fish, which is a living resource, is a pretty perverse form of self-preservation.

Mr. Gallie: Does my hon. Friend accept that the illegal actions of the French fishermen follow the illegal actions of French farmers and French lorry drivers? Although I welcome his comments about compensation


for fishermen after recent events, will he consider the compensation claims made by hauliers and farmers last summer, or even before?

Mr. Curry: Yes, I shall certainly do that. I realise that it is a problem that goes wider than fisheries alone.

Points of Order

4 pm

Mr. Richard Caborn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have, as a matter of courtesy, informed the President of the Board of Trade that I should be raising this point of order with you this afternoon.
As you will recall, the President of the Board of Trade used yesterday's Opposition day debate on manufacturing, industry and unemployment to make his first on-the-record response to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry's report on British energy policy and the market for coal. I believe that that was a grave discourtesy to the Committee, which was not given advance notice of the President's intention to comment on the report, although I understand that the press were.
The matter was raised at our Committee meeting this morning. The Secretary of State will be receiving a letter, which questions not only his discourtesy but his rather selective, inaccurate and inadequate analysis of our report. It was also discourteous to the House, which has repeatedly been promised an opportunity to debate the Select Committee's report and the Government's response when the Government eventually publish their repeatedly delayed White Paper on the coal crisis.
In order to prevent such an incident recurring and to fulfil the Government's commitment to the House, the Select Committee and, indeed, the miners, it is vital that the Government publish their White Paper and give notice of their intention to devote a full debate to both reports without delay. Anything else would be unacceptable to the British people.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker; I seek your guidance. The record of the President's statement is published in column 824 of yesterday's Hansard, but clearly it is incorrect. In a reference to the report, he said that the gas and nuclear industries were considered but that the Committee had made no recommendation. That is clearly incorrect—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not discuss policy with me. He must raise with me a point of order with which I, as Speaker, can deal.

Mr. Clapham: I raise the point to correct the record.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot correct the record of the House through me. He must find other methods of doing that.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Will you take note, Madam Speaker, that there is considerable bitterness and exasperation in the coalfields of Britain that well nigh half a year has passed since the President of the Board of Trade made his announcement? There is deep anxiety, but, despite the fact that the coalfields have been waiting desperately for a statement from the Secretary of State, he chose not to inform anyone, except the press, that a debate on manufacturing industry would be devoted to the future of the coal mining industry. Will you please consider whether the right hon. Gentleman has acted responsibly in this matter?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. If I am given an opportunity to reply and do not have any further points of order, I hope that I can reply adequately to the points raised so far. However, there are two hon. Members standing who wish to raise points of order on this matter. I hope that they are points of order with which I can deal.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade's statement, recorded in column 824, is not incorrect —I understand that he made the statement as printed—but it is at variance with the Select Committee's recommendations. Can you advise us how we can get a statement from the President of the Board of Trade—by means of a private notice question or by any other method— to qualify why he tried to mislead the House yesterday?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the President of the Board of Trade made a statement on 19 October about the 31 pits, you, Madam Speaker, were in the Chair, and heard it along with the rest of us. A select Committee was told to do the job at the same time as the President of the Board of Trade's own investigation. The Select Committee has met and reported, but we have not debated the contents of the report in the Chamber.
The point of order for you, Madam Speaker, is this. My hon. Friends on the Committee have not had a chance to discuss the report in the Chamber, yet the President of the Board of Trade decided to do his own hatchet job on it yesterday. The Select Committee was told by the House to do that job, and the President of the Board of Trade should not have abused his position yesterday. That is the question that should be answered, and that is why he should be brought here to answer.

Madam Speaker: May I respond to one or two of the points of order that have been raised? As some hon. Gentlemen know, it might be better if they raised the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions.
To take the serious point of order raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), I place on record the fact that the report of the Select Committee to which he referred is, as he knows, in the public domain. Even so, it is wise for the Select Committee to take up the matter with the Secretary of State, and I am delighted to hear that it has done so. For the moment we must leave the matter there.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you are aware, last night some English Labour Members sought to defeat some rating and valuation orders which apply to Scotland. Had those orders been defeated in the Division Lobbies, that would have added significantly to the costs of Scottish industry and caused unemployment in Scotland. As you are aware, there are more such rating and valuation orders on the Order Paper today, one of which—the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1993—relates directly to my constituency —[Interruption.] If that order were defeated, rates for oil companies would be increased by about 85 per cent.—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot argue with me about the contents of the order to which he refers. If he will raise a point of order with me, I shall try to deal with it.

Mr. Robertson: I should like to ask whether you have had any intimation that the Opposition intend to divide the House on the orders, defeat them, and so put up costs?

Madam Speaker: I have no idea at all what is likely to happen this evening, just as I do not have much indication of what the House will do on most evenings. It would be most helpful to all of us if we knew.

BILL PRESENTED

GANGMASTER

Sir Richard Body presented a Bill to require gangmasters to be licensed by justices: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 23 April, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matters relating exclusively to Scotland),

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

That the Matter of the National Health Service in Scotland, being a Matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Church of England

Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in England; to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof; and for connected purposes.
The main purpose of my Bill is to allow the House to start to consider whether the time is ripe to disestablish the Church of England in England. Hon. Members on both sides of the House—from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, to senior figures in the Labour party, including the Leader of the Opposition, as well as my own party colleagues and hon. Members from the nationalist and Unionist parties—are now all discussing constitutional reform. It would be odd if the debate on what would be an appropriate constitution for Britain in the next century did not also address the question whether it is right and appropriate that in England, uniquely among the four countries in the United Kingdom, there should remain a direct and daily constitutional and practical link between the Church and the state—

Mr. David Trimble: Uniquely? What about Scotland?

Mr. Hughes: Uniquely in England in this respect. The position in Scotland is different, and I shall deal with that in a moment.
If I were given leave to bring in my Bill I should seek to draft, carefully and with the co-operation of colleagues from both sides of the House, a Bill which would reflect the important elements of this subject. I seek to achieve maximum agreement and I am grateful to colleagues from other parties who have shown their willingness to support the measure, if leave to introduce it is given by the House this afternoon.
On a brief light-hearted note, I am also encouraged to believe that it is worth introducing a ten-minute Bill by the fact that about two years ago I introduced a Bill in which I proposed that the Queen should pay tax. That produced a result sooner than I had expected. Although I do not expect the disestablishment of the Church of England to be quite as easy a change to achieve, I believe that it is proper that such issues should be put on the agenda so that they can then be considered inside as well as outside the House.
For the record, I declare my interest. I am a member of the Church. I am an Anglican and I was baptised into the Anglican Church in England, although I was confirmed in the Church of Wales. I should add that I do not think I suffered any disadvantage from moving from the established to the disestablished church at the age of 11.
The premise on which I base my argument is that the Church of England should, like the church universal, be a serving Church and not a ruling Church.
The matter has been the subject of regular review. Over 20 years ago, the Archbishop of Canterbury set up a commission under Owen Chadwick which in 1970 reported on the relationship between Church and state. Under Lord Callaghan of Cardiff when he was Prime Minister, changes were brought about in the way in which bishops were nominated and chosen by the Prime Minister

of the day. It is therefore not unusual to put the matter on to Parliament's agenda; it has been on Parliament's agenda in one way or another for generations.
Ever since Henry VIII set up the Church of England, for a uniquely personal reason, questions have been asked about whether it is appropriate for the Church-state status quo to continue. The Church of Ireland was disestablished more than 100 years ago and we cannot argue that Christianity has suffered in Ireland as a result of that move. More than 50 years ago, the Church of Wales was disestablished and it cannot be argued that Christianity has suffered in Wales as a result of that move. There is an established Church in Scotland, but it does not have the same constraint on it—for example, in terms of the requirement to pass legislation for approval to this place, as the Church of England currently does. Anglican Churches around the world are not normally established or linked formally with the state. In general, other Churches around the world are not established either.
This initiative is not aimed at demoting the role of Christianity or of religion in society. My argument is not that we now have a multicultural and multi-ethnic Britain in which Christianity is less relevant. That is not an argument, because many who have come as immigrants since the war have been Christians, although from other cultures and ethnic backgrounds. If they are not Christians, many of them are people of other faiths. Many have a great commitment to the idea of a Christian or at least a theist moral underpinning of society. The last thing I would argue is that Parliament should undermine the Christian and other theological principles that many in our society hold dear.
I argue that structural changes should take place. My proposals do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian broadcasting. They do not mean that we do not want to keep a place for religious or Christian education. They do not mean that we do not want to keep one day of the week different from the others. Those issues have nothing to do with the established role of the Church and can all be guarded in separate legislation.
Four obvious changes need to be made. The first is timely, as Parliament is about to consider the measure passed by Synod to permit the ordination of women priests. Why should we continue with a legislative form of supervision based on the assumption that we cannot say no to measures from the Church without causing a constitutional crisis? That is a ridiculous state of affairs.
Secondly, as we discuss what reforms to make in the composition of the other place, the second Chamber, the House of Lords, we should ask whether it is any longer justifiable that 26 bishops—two archbishops and 24 bishops by seniority—should have guaranteed places in the legislature of Britain, when neither the head of any other denomination of the Christian Church nor of any other faith has such a place. Lord Soper and Lord Jakobovits happen to be members of the House of Lords, but that is by individual selection and not on any other basis. In addition, Anglican ordained ministers cannot be elected to this House; that may no longer be appropriate either.
Thirdly, it is arguable that it is no longer appropriate for the Prime Minister of the day, if an Anglican or a Christian and even more so if an agnostic or an atheist, to choose the diocesan bishops of the Church of England.
Fourthly—I am sensitive to the issue, but I raise it because it is important—one, two or many generations from now it may no longer be thought appropriate that the heir to the throne should have to be not just a Christian but an Anglican in order to succeed to the throne, when that person might otherwise be entirely qualified to do the job.
I seek to move the measure as a serious initiation of a debate which the House has deferred, although a wish to consider it has been expressed in earlier speeches and in early-day motions. I ask that the House allow the opportunity for the Bill to be introduced, printed and considered.
This proposal is not about undermining the Church or the faith in which I and many others believe. There is all the difference in the world between supporting the Church and supporting the Church as part of the establishment. I do not recall that Christ came to argue that the Church should be on the side of the establishment. The establishment of the Church of England is an accident of our history. I think that we can be just as Christian a country and arguably the Church could be much more effective a Church if it were disengaged from the constitutional shackles which so regularly impose themselves on it.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose?

Mr. Cormack: Yes, Madam Speaker.
I wish to speak briefly about the Bill which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wishes to introduce. I do not for a moment question the integrity of his motives, but I do not believe that it is a subject for a private Member's Bill. The hon. Gentleman is proposing the greatest change of its kind since the Elizabethan settlement of 1558. To do that by means of a private Member's Bill, let alone a ten-minute Bill, seems wholly inappropriate. Although all the subjects which the hon. Gentleman listed deserve proper debate in the House, I think that he has jumped the gun to some degree, perhaps encouraged by his success with his taxation measure of two years ago. Now he is after one of the Queen's titles.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the most important measure ever to come to Parliament from the Church of England—the measure on the ordination of women. Now is not the time to debate that, but it is proper to refer to it, as the hon. Gentleman did in seeking to move the Bill. That measure would introduce a great change. I believe that, if it is effected, the Church of England will have turned itself into a sect and will possibly have forfeited its right to be the established Church anyhow. That may be proper, or it may not, in the view of hon. Members, but it ought to be debated in great detail after the measure on the ordination of women has been dealt with.
Parliament has laid down a procedure for dealing with the measure. First, it should come through the Ecclesiastical Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman and I are members. When that committee has decided whether it deems the measure expedient, there will perhaps

be an opportunity for the Synod to reflect again, and perhaps not, and perhaps for the measure to come to the House.
At that stage, it would be wholly appropriate to have a debate on the future of the established Church and touch on all the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That time is not now. Therefore it would be wrong for the hon. Gentleman to persist with the introduction of the Bill now and I hope that he will not be given permission so to do.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Thank you, Bishop, that is enough.

Mr. Cormack: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) might benefit a little if he went occasionally. Hope springs eternal in my breast, even when I look at the hon. Gentleman, although it takes some doing.
I respect a great deal of what the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. This is much too serious a move to be left to a private Member's Bill and a private Member, however exalted. Many hon. Members in the House still believe in the established Church. Many of us hope that the Church will come through its present travail and troubles and soon have a more decisive lead than it is receiving at present. I do not say "leader", because the present Archbishop of Canterbury will perhaps assert a leadership which, sadly, has been lacking to date. Now is not the time for this measure. I therefore seek to oppose it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. David Wilshire and Mr. John Battle.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to terminate the establishment of the Church of England in England; to make provision in respect of the Temporalities thereof; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the homily, it was suggested that the Church of Scotland was an established church. It is not; it is a presbyterian church. I am an episcopalian and I do not know what "established" means, any more than I know what that silly word, Euro-fraternalist, means, which I brought to your attention yesterday.

Madam Speaker: The House has become enlightened by what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A number of us clearly called "no"; we are therefore puzzled as to why there was no vote on the proposed Bill. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The challenger did not call out "no" when I called again. I called twice. The Chair always calls twice to be absolutely clear. There are occasions when the House becomes sloppy in responding to me. This was one such occasion. When I do not hear a second cry, I must make a decision, and I have just done so.

Prevention of Terrorism

Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I shall make an announcement. There is a lot of interest in the order and I plead with hon. Members to speak for only a short time so that I am able to call Members in all parts of the House.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 is a vital part of our commitment to the defeat of terrorism. The Act is used much more frequently in Northern Ireland against both so-called loyalist and republican terrorism than on the British mainland. But here too, as we all know, Northern Irish terrorism continues to present the main terrorist threat.
Last year, the incidence of terrorist crime in Great Britain was higher than at any time since the Act was first introduced in 1974, and terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, remains at a high level. There is little doubt that the threat from terrorist crime will continue throughout the next 12 months. However, I can assure the House that it will meet with a continuing resolute response from the Government.
Let us look at what has been achieved over the past year as there have been considerable successes. In Northern Ireland, 404 people were charged with terrorist-related offences, including 97 with murder or attempted murder. Last year, and also in the previous year, more people were charged with murder than in any year since 1984. More than 300 people were convicted of terrorist-related offences, and more than 200 weapons and two tonnes of explosives have been found.
Since the beginning of last year, 19 people have been charged in Great Britain with serious terrorist-related offences such as murder and conspiracy to cause explosions in connection with Northern Irish terrorism. All 19 were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 using just those powers that I am inviting the House to continue today. We are debating the continuance order against the background of another considerable success for the police force and the security service in this country, with the discovery of a large cache of home-made explosives in London only yesterday.
In the face of the continuing threat, continuing success and the good use of the powers that a Labour Government originally thought necessary when they introduced the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, I am extremely disappointed by the post-election reaction of the new Opposition Home Office team. It has offered talks, as it always does.
On previous occasions the Opposition team has offered to sit down and talk about the Act through the agency, originally, of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He made it quite clear, as has the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), that the talks will be held on two preconditions: that we accept the Labour party's opposition to the two most important provisions in the Bill and the two most important provisions in the order. That is an extraordinary attempt by the Labour

party to sound reasonable by talking about holding talks with the Government, while it really lacks sense and is declaring a continued opposition to the purpose of the order.
I acquit my opposite number—the hon. Member for Sedgefield—of any ill intentions. I accept that he is as opposed to terrorism as I am, and does not intend to give help or encouragement to terrorists in this country, but he is in danger of doing so by accident. As we shall, perhaps, discover, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the purpose of the order, the use to which it is put and the vital part that it plays in our defence against terrorist activity on both sides of the Irish sea.
Therefore, I shall begin by addressing the two issues said to trouble the Opposition. I hope to get the Opposition to understand what the prevention of terrorism measure is designed to do.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not the Home Secretary playing on dangerous ground? The House of Commons is usually divided on virtually every subject under the sun. However, one form of unity that we have is our opposition to and loathing of all forms of terrorism, not least from Northern Ireland. Therefore, would it not be unfortunate and dangerous for the Home Secretary to give any impression other than that, while we are clearly divided over the measure, there is no division in our opposition to terrorism? Why should we give the terrorists the satisfaction of thinking that anyone in the House of Commons has time for them?

Mr. Clarke: I have just said that I accept that the Labour party is, of course, opposed to terrorism—as, I trust and firmly believe, are all hon. Members. We were agreed on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) 1974 Act which, for eight years, was supported by both sides of the House after it was introduced by a Labour Home Secretary.
For the past 10 years, there has been a completely absurd division between Government and Opposition because the Labour party changed its mind about these powers. We have discovered that Labour is still withholding support for the Act. Although Opposition Members have not said so, as far as I can see they will vote against the order. As I accept that Labour opposes terrorism, I can only believe that it is giving encouragement to terrorists, who find these powers a considerable inconvenience, by accident.
The Opposition do not understand the purpose of the order, so I shall begin by trying to explain to them again the purpose of the Act and the order. I hope that I can get the Labour party to accept the failure of its opposition over the past 10 years and come onside in practice as well as in sentiment. The purpose of the Act—

Mr. Tony Blair: Does the Home Secretary understand that the first of the two principal objections that we have outlined, which relates to exclusion orders, has been supported by his independent adviser? Our second objection relates to judicial intervention and the period of detention, and was contemplated by previous Home Secretaries. Although the Home Secretary may disagree—I understand the reasons that he is about to give —how can he possibly say that we are giving some form of closet support to terrorism by voicing objections, one of which has been supported by his independent adviser and the other contemplated by a previous Home Secretary?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's point about my independent adviser is deliberately disingenuous. Some years ago the independent adviser once expressed reservations. The independent adviser, Lord Colville of Culross, who I trust is accepted as independent by the hon. Gentleman, recommends the renewal of the order in full. The hon. Member for Sedgefield uses that argument to try to give some respectability to his opposition to exclusion orders, the merits of which I shall shortly address. It is not true to say that the up-to-date advice of independent adviser is for change.
I propose to address the arguments on the detention orders, which were the subject of the hon. Gentleman's second point. It is not a judicial duty to look al the extension of detentions beyond 48 hours. I shall again explain the reasons why we are satisfied that the police and the security services occasionally need to seek leave to detain people for more than 48 hours. There is no point in the hon. Member for Sedgefield standing up, looking steely-eyed, and declaring that his position is reasonable. He is trying to find reasons to carry on clinging to the year in, year out, objections of his predecessor to the renewal of the Act, and by doing so he opposes the renewal of important powers. To that extent he is, although unintentionally, giving great encouragement to the PIRA and others who find these powers so damaging.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I served on the Committee that examined the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, and all my attempts to resist such invasions of human rights or proof or anything else by the then Labour Minister and the Labour Government were opposed. If Opposition Members care to read Hansard they will see that. They damn well should read it.

Mr. Clarke: I believe that my hon. and learned Friend was mistaken in some of the arguments that he made against the Bill at that time. It was a new and uncertain power and, as he has said, he was opposed by Labour. When the Bill, which apparently was different as far as the Opposition are concerned, was being introduced by a Labour Government, the hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North said:
It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens.
The hon. Member for Kingston Upon Hull, North, who is now the Opposition spokesman, also said:
While examining the detail, we cannot deny the principle or say under any circumstances that when our people are looking to us for support we in this House should deny it to them."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 700.]
That is what he said when a Labour Home Secretary sought those powers. It is time for some effect to be given to what ought to be a bipartisan consensus on how to tackle terrorism and for the Opposition to stop retreating into obscure arguments about the detail and to give us the powers that unfortunately, we continue to need.

Mr. Blair: The Home Secretary has begun by playing exactly the politics that one would expect of him, and it is unworthy of him to do so. Let me pick him up on that point, so that the House is in no doubt about the nature of our objection and the offer that we have made to him.
On exclusion orders, the Home Secretary suggested that his independent adviser had resiled from his present position. Let me quote from this year's report, just published, in which Lord Colville says:
My own views on this power"—
the exclusion power—
are well-known, but it is encouraging that its use is diminishing.
He has in no sense resiled from his earlier view; he has merely accepted that the Home Office has no intention of changing its view. Exclusion orders are still rejected by the Home Secretary's adviser. Judicial intervention, on which we have been found in breach of the European convention, was contemplated by previous Home Secretaries. In those circumstances, to suggest that we are against the entire nature of legislation to prevent terrorism is an outrage.

Mr. Clarke: First, Lord Colville has recommended that the Act and the powers be renewed in their entirety. The hon. Gentleman has disingenuously left out that point in all three of his interventions. When we talk about playing politics, the hon. Gentleman is making it sound as though he is suddenly more robust in supporting the Government and wants talks about how we can make the fight against terrorism more effective, but, as I think he will demonstrate at the end of the debate, he will then vote against the powers that we need.
The offer that he says he has made is to have discussions that will lead to the suspension of the exclusion orders, the ending of the exclusion orders and the introduction of a judicial process after 48 hours. He requests talks on the basis that the most important powers in the Act are not used.
If the hon. Gentleman considers that his case has merit and not simply a new type of Clintonesque style, let us move on to the issues.

Mr. Blair: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Clarke: No. I am seeking to explore whether there is any substance behind the new smiling face on the Opposition Front Bench. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There are too many conversations and sub-debates. If hon. Members want to catch my eye, they should keep quiet now.

Mr. Clarke: As the House will appreciate, the Act is mainly designed to help the investigation and prevention of terrorism. People are not usually charged or brought to trial in the courts under the parts of the Act that are in dispute.
The Act is aimed at helping the investigation and prevention, where possible, of terrorist incidents before they happen. In attempting to prevent terrorism, powers sometimes have to be exercised in advance of a terrorist act. In some cases, preparations may not have reached the stage where there is any sustainable evidence of a specific crime.
In those circumstances, it is false to draw analogies with ordinary criminal law. When somebody is facing a charge for an actual offence, evidence is presented by one side or the other and there is a judicial determination. However, because of the threat of terrorism, we have to introduce in the Act specific powers designed to thwart terrorist acts in advance and to further the investigation of them. That is why specific powers are needed for the curse of terrorism.
The first of those powers, to which the Opposition continue to object, is the power of exclusion. It is not used frequently, and I certainly use it with considerable care. It is used less than previously because I would not use such powers which genuinely run the risk of curtailing the civil rights of innocent people. It is a power to be used with great circumspection. I use it in cases where I am satisfied that a particular person is involved in terrorism—such people almost invariably have a history of that—and there is sufficient information to satisfy me that there is a risk of continued terrorist involvement.
In such a case, however good the information is it cannot be presented in court to secure the prosecution of someone who has committed a particular terrorist act. In general, we are talking about would-be terrorists, where I am satisfied that they are travelling to this country to plan a terrorist act, if they have the opportunity to do so.
As Home Secretary, I use the power to prevent terrorists from coming to this country to plan and to carry out those attacks. In a few instances, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland uses the power to stop people going the other way. We certainly succeed in disrupting the free movement of terrorists between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. I am quite convinced that the use of that power has a substantial effect in frustrating and disrupting the activities of terrorists. It has been suggested that an alternative to the power would be to mount surveillance operations on those who would otherwise be excluded. I am satisfied that that would not work in practice.
The Opposition claim to be leaping to the defence of some great civil liberty. In fact, they are trying to stop me overruling the right of people with a long track record of serious terrorism to come across the Irish sea. They pretend that they want to come to visit relatives, to have a holiday, or to exercise some other great civil right.
I remind the House that during the past year I have made only two new exclusion orders. There were 81 still extant at end of the year. I renew them when I am satisfied that the threat posed by a named person wishing to come here is sustained. That is the lowest total of exclusion orders for 10 years; that is the exclusion order power that the hon. Member for Sedgefield insists is removed before we can have the fairly useless talks about the Act that he has offered.
It is an important power used to prevent people who I am satisfied have an involvement in terrorism from coming to this country. It is used sparingly. It is absurd of the Opposition to try to construct some elevated arguments of principle for removing that important power, thereby making us look for some other method of keeping tabs on 81 people who have been involved in terrorism.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be unsure whether to argue that the power is a fundamental necessity because it is used so often, or whether it is fairly trivial because it is not used very often. His own independent advisers have said that only a small number of cases are involved, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges. The advisers—not just Lord Colville, but his previous adviser—said that the power could be used in a different way and that surveillance could be carried out in such a manner as to make an exclusion order unnecessary.
I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that previous Home Secretaries have said that exclusion orders would outlive their usefulness at some point of time, which is precisely what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's adviser has now advised. In those circumstances, how can he say that our proposition is extreme?

Mr. Clarke: I have said that it is an important power, which is used sparingly to ensure that there is no infringement of civil liberties. I am quite satisfied that the alternative of surveillance of 81 people on both sides of the Irish sea, wherever they might be at any given time, is not satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman is defending not an important point of civil liberty, but a silly position adopted by his predecessors, which he does not have the nerve to abandon. He takes the same position on the extensions of detention, which is the second power on which he tries to elevate an argument of great principle.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that two new exclusion orders had been made during the past year. Does he agree that almost all such orders arise out of intelligence gathered in Northern Ireland about people who wish to come to England, Scotland or Wales? Does not the exclusion of just two people say something about the level of hard intelligence that has been gathered, or has the capacity to be gathered, under the Act?

Mr. Clarke: We gather a great deal of intelligence in Northern Ireland, and we are strengthening the gathering of intelligence in Great Britain. The relationship between all those involved is extremely good. We use that intelligence in a whole variety of ways. It is true that there are 81 orders extant and that I have added only two new ones during the past year. They are based on sufficient information to satisfy me that a particular person is engaged in terrorism and that preventing him from travelling backwards and forwards between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain would disrupt his would-be activities.
That is not, in itself, a measure of the amount of intelligence that we have gathered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was encouraged by what I said at the beginning of my speech about the number of people being arrested, charged and convicted. I assure him that, through intelligence gathering and every other legitimate police activity, we will build on that success.

Mr. Clive Soley: I hope that the Home Secretary, through the very exchanges that are now taking place, is beginning to understand the need for the talks offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The issue is not just one of civil liberties, although that is important; it is about effectiveness. Terrorist activity has gone up while the use of the Act has gone down.
The dangerous aspect is that the Act is still used by terrorist groups on both sides in Northern Ireland to indicate the political nature of the issue. It is the only case in which a politician can determine a judicial decision; the matter does not go through the courts. Because of that, the terrorists—especially on the republican side, but also on the unionist side—make enormous propaganda use of the Act. It is counter-productive because it acts as a recruiting sergeant for the IRA.

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that. It is an important point that the Opposition should address. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point about cases being matters for judicial decision when I come to deal with the extensions of detention, because the point applies strongly there. They are not judicial decisions; they are not two competing pieces of evidence being examined and decided on by a member of the judiciary. By their very nature, they cannot be so. They are the sorts of actions taken by politicians in every other country when there is intelligence about terrorist activity by an individual. Constraints must be imposed.
If the arguments of the terrorist organisations were not given some credibility by respectable democratic politicians sustaining their opposition to the Act, the terrorists would not get anywhere in trying to persuade anyone other than their committed supporters that the Act was a justification for their actions or that it was helpful in recruiting.
We cannot make exclusion orders a judicial process—I do not think that anybody has ever tried. By their very nature, exclusion orders are based on the fact that we have sufficient information to satisfy a Home Secretary, answerable to the House of Commons, that a particular person has sufficient involvement in terrorism for it to be desirable to prevent his movement between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. It is an important power, the renewal of which was recommended by Lord Colville. It should be renewed.

Mr. Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has alleged that our position on exclusion orders lends credibility to the IRA. Is he making the same criticism of his own advisers, who advised him to adopt exactly our position?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is clutching at straws. Our adviser, Lord Colville, has recommended the renewal of the Act, which is what the hon. Gentleman opposes. He flies in the face of Lord Colville's advice. I advise him to stop citing Lord Colville in his support, because that is somewhat inconsistent.
The Opposition have criticised us for not bringing the Act into line with the outcome of the hearing that took place under the European convention on human rights. Let us look at that issue, which is narrow but important. It is true that the European Court has held that article 5(3) of the convention is breached if detainees are not brought before a court after four days' detention. The court is quite satisfied about the first four days, but it has said that, thereafter, there should be judicial intervention. This is the point that the Opposition are pursuing. Following the finding to which I have just referred, the British Government have always had a derogation from the convention. We do not believe that what the Opposition suggest is a practical way of proceeding, as I shall explain in a moment.
In response to the claims that we are breaching civil liberties and providing a recruiting sergeant for the IRA, let me remind the House of the care with which this power is used. Last year, I granted only 17 detention extensions under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That is the lowest number since 1984. We are exercising these powers with great care. In 10 of the 17

cases, detention lasted only four days, so in respect of those cases there is no dispute. Cases in which longer extensions are sought are considered very carefully by me.
There was a grand total of seven cases in which I concluded that detention should last more than four and up to seven days. In other words, the power is used very sparingly. However, these are serious cases. Terrorism is serious. Seven is a large number of cases when one is talking about people engaged in very serious, extremely dangerous, terrorist activity.
The cases in which detention beyond the first four days is necessary tend to be those involving serious investigation that has to be continued. Usually, but not always, this arises from the need for forensic tests. Sometimes it is the need for searches, sometimes the need to follow up leads from other contacts, and so on. Without this power in those circumstances, there would be cases in which people charged with terrorism could walk free. It has been said that extension beyond four days should be by way of judicial decision, that a judge should be called in to make a decision about the final three days. First, that was not the conclusion of Lord Shackleton in his report of 1978. Nor has it ever been the conclusion of Lord Colville, particularly in his report of 1987. So far as I know, the view of Lord Colville remains the same.
This is an executive rather than a judicial decision. It is with the greatest respect that I say that the decision of the European Court was wrong. The system here is different from that on the continent. On the continent, people ca .n be detained for very much longer, the papers having been considered by a comparatively minor member of the judiciary, who is probably supervising the whole prosecution. We do not have the juge d'instruction; we do not have the supervisory magistrate; we do not have a professional investigative judiciary. What we have is the careful exercise of executive power. What we have here is an executive rather than a judicial act. In judicial proceedings, someone would present to the judge all the evidence upon which the further extension was called for. The defence would examine the evidence and would put arguments to the judge, and, on the balance of argument, a judicial decision would be made.
In this country, the suspect is not given the information that is being followed up. We do not reveal how alleged involvement in crime is being investigated. It would be the height of folly to do so. Such people are often anxious to get out as quickly as possible to frustrate the investigation. Thus, an extremely serious executive act has to be taken by the holder of my office. The Home Secretary has to be satisfied that there is good reason for extending the detention up to seven days.
If that power were not exercised, or if it were weakened, as, in effect, the Opposition would do, terrorists would be released after four days. They would melt into the population like snow off a ditch, and then the results of the forensic tests would reveal that the authorities had the right people in the first place and that they should have been charged.

Mr. Blair: That is an outrageous suggestion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that, while he wants detention to be extended by executive act, we believe that this should be achieved by way of judicial intervention. I am surprised that he should find this extraordinary. Judicial intervention is the normal course in the rule of law. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that after


four days a person would walk free. The evidence would be presented to the judge in exactly the same way as it is presented to the Home Secretary. As the European Court found, and as a previous Home Secretary from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's own party was prepared to confirm, the difference here is the difference between proper judicial intervention and executive action. This goes to the very heart of the issue.

Mr. Clarke: The judge would be carrying out an executive act. The difference is that he would be new to the case. Judges do not normally take executive action of this kind. A judge presides at judicial proceedings in which competing evidence is openly exchanged and he makes a decision. That is the role that is most appropriate to a judge. Let me state what I see as the difference between us. I am confronting the reality of the need to deal with terrorist incidents. I am dealing with the reality of what is required for proper investigation of allegations of involvement in terrorist activities on this side of the Irish sea and in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, the hon. Gentleman is using detailed points, which in my opinion are not sustainable, to justify opposition to the renewal of these powers.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Why does the Home Secretary say that Lord Colville never recommended judicial intervention? In the report in which the noble Lord was specifically critical of extended detention, saying that it must be examined again, he said that the new model ought to follow the example of Scottish and Isle of Man procedure, which involves judicial intervention. That is why Scotland was not arraigned before the European Court. Why does the Home Secretary say that Lord Colville took up a position opposite to that which, in fact, he did take up?

Mr. Clarke: I repeat that my understanding of Lord Colville's report of 1987 is that it did not take up that position. Lord Colville, having supervised the operation of the Act, recommends the renewal of all its powers. On the basis of my experience so far in this office, I believe that to be good advice, and I commend it to the House. I believe that our power to investigate and prevent terrorism in Great Britain and Northern Ireland would be greatly weakened if this order were turned down by the House.

Mr, John Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend has referred to those who have to face the reality of action against terrorists. I am sure he agrees that the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the other security forces in Northern Ireland do an absolutely superb job. Does he know that, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs visited Belfast recently, the deputy Chief Constable of the RUC pleaded with its members to see that the emergency provisions were renewed, lock, stock and barrel?

Mr. Clarke: I am aware of that. Perhaps I was naive in hoping that that point could be brought home effectively to the Opposition in the course of this debate. So far, we have not succeeded in that respect.
Let me turn to Lord Colville's report. The noble Lord gave the operation of these powers a clean bill of health. On the question of exclusion orders, he observed that the power had been used sparingly in 1992 and that the

machinery was working effectively. He emphasised the importance of the work of the three independent advisers who, having reviewed the cases of those wishing to make representations against exclusion, advise the Secretary of State as to their findings.
I agree wholeheartedly with Lord Colville's observations. The advisers fulfil a most important role, each undertaking his work with very great care and diligence. I do not undertake always to accept their advice, although, so far, it has invariably been accepted. These people provide another important check on the use of the power and a safeguard for the individual. Lord Colville's report also records his finding that the proper criteria are being carefully observed in considering whether extensions of detention should be granted.
With regard to the other powers under the Act, the report goes on to present a good picture of the way in which the police have responded to complaints from members of the public about the conduct of checks under the Act. I am glad to hear it, because the co-operation of the public with the police is essential.
Lord Colville's report on the operation of the Act last year approves of the way in which the powers are being exercised and recommends their renewal, and—I repeat —the Opposition are scratching about trying to find some means of justifying the rather surprising repetition of their vote this evening.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: The law of Scotland was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), but he has got the law of Scotland wrong. Even if he had not, and if he had visited the Province, which I am sure he has, this is nothing to do with a religious war; it is purely a mafia operation which, I regret, is funded by the money thrown at Northern Ireland by the British Government, and the sooner we recognise that the better.

Mr. Clarke: I shall come later to the money-gathering activities of the terrorists. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that, as the difficulties continue, it becomes more and more clear that large numbers of terrorist organisations are heavily involved in arguing over the proceeds of criminal activities to finance what they are doing. The border between criminality and politics is becoming ever increasingly blurred in the continuing campaign—[Interruption.]—so far as the objectives of the terrorists are concerned. So far as the politics of the Opposition is concerned, their tactics are not criminal—I have always conceded that—they are just careless and an attempt to justify their past activities.
I have obtained a quotation to confirm what I said about Lord Colville. In addition to the clean bill of health that he has given, I now have his recommendation for this year, which has been ignored by the Opposition. The December 1987 report deals with the detention powers and sets out in chapter 12 the attractiveness at first sight of the argument that the decisions should be made by a High Court judge.
In paragraph 12.1.3, Lord Colville said:
On reflection I believe that such a change would be wrong. It would be cosmetic rather than substantial".
I shall not continue to quote, but Lord Colville supports the argument that I am making. [Interruption.] I can read it all if the Opposition wish, but I do not think that they are open to argument. In paragraph 12.1.6, Lord Colville concludes:


On examination, therefore, this proposition adds nothing to safeguards for civil liberties".

Mr. Hattersley: I think that the Home Secretary quoted from the 1987 report. Let me quote Lord Colville in 1991 when he called for a bold new initiative which he regarded as irresistible since the power should be changed. He said:
It is now perhaps irresistible that some new tribunal will be set up to oversee the powers"—
that is what we are calling for—
it could draw on Scottish or Channel Island methodology"—
that is what we are calling for. That is four years after the quotation that the Home Secretary has just given us.

Mr. Clarke: The Opposition are calling for a judicial involvement in the extension of the powers. The right hon. Gentleman may wave his finger, but he is not on the Front Bench now. What is being called for is judicial intervention. The arguments against that were set out by Lord Colville in 1987. They were substantial and they remain substantial. I agree with them. I have one advantage over both Opposition spokesmen, in that I have operated the powers. I can assure them from experience that they would weaken the Act if their vote were successful. I assure them that, as they know perfectly well, they are going in the teeth of the up-to-date advice of Lord Colville that we should renew the powers that we are seeking today.

Mr. Blair: Lord Colville's point is not that a judicial intervention would inhibit the security services, which is the Home Secretary's argument; on the contrary, he is saying that he believes—I disagree for reasons that I shall give—that it will not safeguard the civil liberties of the detainee. The Home Secretary's argument is that if we put in judicial intervention that will inhibit the security services. It is that argument that Lord Colville specifically rejected.

Mr. Clarke: He rejects it rather more strongly than that, if we are to go into the detailed argument. He points out the difficulties of doing it that way at all. In paragraph 12.1.5—[Interruption.] the hon. Gentleman raised the point, so he must listen—Lord Colville says:
In Northern Ireland and Scotland the number of High Court Judges is small enough to bring some consonance. In England and Wales, however, the practicality is different. These applications by the police would be made as a matter of urgency in the force area. The Senior Circuit Judge would often sit as a Deputy High Court Judge for the occasion; he or she would have great difficulty in communicating with colleagues who had been faced with similar applications. It is not a recipe for consistency. Apart from such Deputies, there are over 100 real High Court Judges who might have to make the decision.
A whole range of different people would be involved in making those decisions.
It is right that, as Lord Colville says, no improvement in civil liberties would result. In my judgment—it seems to me to be reinforced by Lord Colville's recommendation that we renew the powers this year—the practicality would fall down in every possible way. It is the most effective way of handling these things that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that further detention is justified. It would weaken our effectiveness in dealing with allegations against terrorist suspects if the power were changed in the way that the Opposition recommend.

Mr. Blair: I do not want to interrupt unnecessarily; I simply say that, after the passage to which the Home Secretary referred, Lord Colville concludes:
On examination, therefore, this proposition adds nothing to safeguards for civil liberties.
That is why Lord Colville is questioning the provision. At no stage in any of his reports—indeed, as I shall show, a previous Home Secretary said that he wanted judicial intervention—does Lord Colville say that it will prevent us from getting terrorists. That would be a substantial reason for rejecting our position. What is not a substantial reason is the reason given there.

Mr. Clarke: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is scrabbling about. In 1974, a Labour Home Secretary introduced the Act. Its powers were essential. The Conservative party has voted in favour of them consistently in opposition and in government ever since. In 1982 the Labour party went through what I would like to believe was a temporary period of left-wing aberration and, no doubt at the behest of some of its less desirable Members, things got completely out of hand and it suddenly started to vote against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The hon. Member for Sedgefield and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) are meant to be leading figures in the attempt to rescue the Labour party from the murk of the 1980s and to get it back on to a sensible course of cross-party agreement in those things that are essential in the fight against crime and terrorism. So far, neither of them is up to it. The Opposition have carried on having this silly vote each year, and they are scratching about to try to find reasons for it.
The power is used sparingly by the security services and police who are successfully making strides in combating terrorism in this country. It is time that the actions of the Opposition began to match their rhetoric, and they would best be matched by a vote in favour of continuing the provisions this evening.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook referred to Scottish methodology. There is no such thing. Fortunately, our law is based on principle, as is our party and as is our commitment—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that that is not a point of order for the Chair; it is a point of information; a point in debate.

Mr. Clarke: Let me explain some safeguards that are already built into the emergency provisions legislation and which are being strengthened in two ways in Northern Ireland in order to try to meet legitimate concern, if it exists, about the way in which the emergency powers are used.
First, on 16 December last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced the appointment of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper to the post of independent commissioner for the police holding centres. His principal role as commissioner will be to observe, comment and report on the conditions under which terrorist suspects are detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the holding centres of Castlereagh, Gough and Strand Road. He will provide an independent check that the statutory and administrative safeguards are fully complied with. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is preparing codes


of practice under section 61 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, governing the detention, questioning, treatment and identification of suspects detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
The codes will be modelled closely on the existing codes made under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, amended to take account of the emergency legislation. The codes have been issued for public consultation, and it is hoped that they will be laid before the House in the near future.

Mr. William O'Brien: How will Sir Louis Blom-Cooper ensure that those matters are carried out in his absence?

Mr. Clarke: I am assured by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is in his place by my side, that a substitute will soon be appointed.
The question of terrorist finances was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). We have for several years been aware of the determined criminality of the provisional IRA's fundraising methods. There is now reliable information that loyalist terrorist groups are becoming increasingly involved in serious and complex frauds and crimes of dishonesty.
One effective way of undermining terror campaigns is to starve the terrorist groups of the funds that they require. The financial provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are a significant component of our efforts to combat terrorist racketeering in connection with Northern Ireland. They have been used to good effect in stemming a number of traditional sources of terrorist funding and are regarded by the RUC as invaluable in its continuing efforts to combat terrorism.
Lord Colville has long advocated strengthening the Act's provisions in that respect, and his recent report recommends that the Government should seize the opportunity provided by the Criminal Justice Bill—presently under consideration in another place—to make some amendment to that legislation. That is just our intention. The Government will be introducing amendments to the Bill in Committee, with the aim of bringing the law on terrorist finances into line with many of the changes being made in the same Bill to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
I will mention as briefly as possible two further Government measures taken during the course of the year. Last May, I announced that the lead for intelligence gathering against Irish republican terrorism in Great Britain would pass from the Metropolitan Police special branch to the security service. I make it clear again that the security service has not taken over responsibility for counter-terrorism from the police, who remain responsible for prevention and detection of terrorist crime, as for other forms of crime, and retain a national role in intelligence work.
The new arrangements came into effect on 1 October last year. Thanks to the efforts of both services, they are working well. As I intended, they are making the best use of the experience and expertise of each service, and we are steadily gathering more intelligence all the time. The new

arrangements do not change the position in Northern Ireland, where the RUC retains primacy in all operational security matters.
The second measure is the extension of tape recording to terrorist cases in England and Wales on a trial basis for two years, from 1 December last year. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of those trials, which are being monitored by a broadly based steering group. If the trials conclude with a recommendation that such cases should be brought fully within the ambit of the PACE code of practice on tape recording, I shall welcome that—but difficult and serious issues must be considered first and, for the time being, I am keeping an open mind on that subject.
I have sought to remind the House of the terrorist threat and to explain as briefly as I can why it is important to ensure that the powers in the prevention of terrorism measures continue in force. Those powers are obviously used carefully and with discretion, backed by established safeguards that we keep constantly under review. The key point is that they continue to provide an important and necessary weapons in the fight against terrorism. At a time when we are achieving successes, it would be the height of folly to dispense with those powers.
I believe, as the hon. Member for Sedgefield often says, that this ought not to be an inter-party issue. We are entitled to expect the Opposition's support in our stand against terrorism in practical form, but their record since 1983, when they started voting against the Act, clearly shows that they are not yet ready to do that and to adopt the position that they occupied in Government in the 1970s. I am genuinely disappointed by that.
It appears that this year only the rhetoric will be changed slightly. The points being made and the policies are exactly the same. The origin of that policy goes back to a difficult time in the Labour movement, which the Opposition are no doubt trying to forget. If the Opposition are trying to forget and to break away from that, they should start changing Labour's actions. It would be welcome and reassuring to many if Labour did not just raise a smoke screen about talks but withheld its opposition to the renewal of the powers this year.

Mr. Tony Blair: We certainly owe a great debt of gratitude to our police and security services for their excellent work recently, and the new find of explosives announced today. They often work in circumstances of great danger and difficulty, and we pay tribute to them.
This legislation is debated every year because, as every Home Secretary who ever introduced it has said—at least until this year—it involves serious and fundamental departures from the normal processes of British law. It grants powers of detention and exclusion in respect of subjects of the United Kingdom which would otherwise be condemned without hesitation as contrary to the principles of British justice.
In the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Parliament decided the reasonable outer limits of powers of detention and restraint, but the measures before us go beyond them. The majority of those arrested for terrorism could have been arrested under existing criminal law, rather than under the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. Those powers, introduced before the 1984 Act, are to cater for


cases in which, it is said, ordinary powers are insufficient. We should not forget that they are unique powers, to deal with a unique situation.
That is emphasised by the title of the legislation: the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The first Labour Home Secretary to introduce the power, in 1974, said that he did so with great reluctance. His opposite number on the Conservative Front Bench, now Lord Joseph, spoke of his "distaste" for the laws, although he supported them. In 1982, Lord Whitelaw stated that the Act
makes considerable inroads into the civil liberties of which we are justly proud",
and he urged particular scrutiny of its powers. That is why they are subject to constant review.
Lord Shackleton reported in 1978, following pressure from the House that it would not agree to renewing the provisions in the absence of such a review, and Lord Jellicoe reported in 1983. In 1984, an annual process of review was established, first under Sir Cyril Philips, and then under Lord Colville. Following reviews, changes were made.
The annual nature of this debate emphasises the serious nature of the order. Of particular cause for concern are the speeches of recent Home Secretaries, especially that of the present Home Secretary today. Expressions of distaste, of concern, and of vigilance to ensure that we were not doing more than was necessary to combat terrorism, and the belief that the 1989 Act might be a necessary evil, have grown rather weaker with time. Today, for the first time, the Home Secretary made no such mention at all.
I hope that no right hon. or hon. Member believes that we should simply rubber-stamp an order of this nature. It comes before us every year precisely because we should carefully scrutinise its provisions. Those right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom are evidently among those on the Government Benches now, who believe that we should just rubber-stamp the measure—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—and who show by their attitude that they think that it is wrong even to raise doubts about the measure's contents do not pay sufficient attention to the nature of our parliamentary democracy.

Mr. Stephen Milligan: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. May I ask him a simple question? A Labour Government introduced this measure, but for the past 10 years a Labour Opposition have opposed it. Were the Labour Government wrong to introduce it, or are the Labour Opposition wrong to oppose it?

Mr. Blair: I shall explain the precise reasons for the position that we have adopted. I hope to show the hon. Gentleman exactly why our position is entirely reasonable and justifiable; I simply ask him, and other hon. Members, to listen to the argument.

Mr. Eric Pickles: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary quoted the words of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Let me refresh the hon. Gentleman's memory: the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that the measures were necessary, and that we should not have the deaths of our citizens on our conscience. I support those sentiments: they were right then, and they

are right now. Rather than just talking about getting tough with terrorists, why does the hon. Gentleman not give his support to the people who put their lives on the line?

Mr. Blair: We shall explain the nature of our objections. The hon. Gentleman should realise that Labour is prepared to separate the issue from party politics; it is the Conservative party which insists on turning it into a party political issue, despite our objections. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, will listen to our objections to the order. I shall allow him to intervene if he considers those objections unreasonable.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: I should like to get on with my speech.
There are two fundamental flaws in the order as it is now drafted. Exclusion orders, and the absence of a judicial review of the extraordinary power of detention. Exclusion orders were seen from the beginning as the most temporary of the temporary provisions that we are discussing. Lord Shackleton expressed deep unease about them in 1978; Lord Jellicoe called for them to be severely restricted, and possibly removed altogether; Sir Cyril Phillips, the first independent adviser under the annual review, said that such powers were no longer justifiable; and Lord Colville, the present independent adviser, in 1987 and subsequently called for their removal.
It is not true that Lord Colville has resiled from his earlier view, as the Home Secretary said. He has done no such thing; he has merely accepted that it is not the Government's view. He has also repeated in his review this year that he believes the powers to be unnecessary. Conservative Members may disagree with the point that is being made. They may believe that exclusion orders are necessary. It can hardly be said, however, that objecting to exclusion orders is extreme or unreasonable.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: Conservative Members will not even listen to what I am saying. Objecting to exclusion orders can hardly be described as unreasonable or extreme, given that their abolition has been sought with increasing firmness by every independent adviser to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for extending his usual courtesy and giving way to me. I remind him that his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said of exclusion orders:
It would be most sad…if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens.
Much as I respect the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I must put it to him that he is now dissociating himself from the judgment of his hon. Friend because he knows that if he does not do so he will be unable to carry the left wing of his party. He stands condemned, in the House and the country, for putting the unity of his party before the priority of taking a stand against terrorism. That is the point that he ought to answer.

Mr. Blair: That is not often said, I must say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made it clear at that time that he believed that exclusion orders were necessary. If the hon.


Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) reads the speeches made at the time, however, he will see that it was specifically said that those powers should be the first to go. The reason why there was an independent review—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will at least listen to my replies to their questions. The independent review was set up precisely to establish whether measures such as exclusion orders were still necessary. The independent reviewer reported that they were no longer necessary, and his successor has said the same. That is why the position is different today.
It is not hard to see the reason. The section of the Act which provides for exclusion orders says that they can be made either to prevent someone in Northern Ireland from entering Britain, or to prevent someone in Britain from entering Northern Ireland. No restriction on freedom is imposed on such people when they are in Northern Ireland, or in Britain. To make such an order, the Secretary of State must be satisfied—not merely have grounds, even reasonable grounds, for suspecting—that a person entering either Northern Ireland or Britain is a terrorist, or is about to engage in terrorism.
Self-evidently, the power has been subject to attack, for a very simple reason. Either someone is a terrorist, in which case he should be in detention, or he is not, in which case he should be able to move freely. If such a person is under suspicion, he should be under surveillance, whether in Northern Ireland or in Britain. That is precisely why the Government's own independent advisers have sought the abolition of the power.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Blair: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish.
I quote the words of someone who was never considered to be soft on terrorism—former Member of Parliament Enoch Powell—who said in February 1987:
The inherent objectionableness of a power to exclude from one part of the United Kingdom into another is undiminished, but the evidence for utility continues to diminish. I hope that we shall see the end of it, certainly no later than the new edition of this Act, and preferably when we come to consider renewal in a year's time. An indication of that indeed came from the Home Secretary.
At that time, the Government were themselves saying that they could see the end of the exclusion powers. Mr. Powell continued:
There is no reason why we should perpetuate this division of the United Kingdom into mutual exclusion zones. We should probably never have done this in 1974. It was probably based on misconception…The power is no longer welcome, certainly not in Northern Ireland."—[0fficial Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 277.]
Conservative Members may disagree with the point being made, but they can hardly say that it is so extreme that no reasonable person could ever contemplate it. Their own advisers support it, and even Unionist Members of Parliament believe that the powers have outlived their usefulness.
There are Members of Parliament, such as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who are opposed to exclusion orders although they themselves suffer terrorist threats and abuse. If hon. Members will not listen to us when we tell them of the use to which their views are being put as propaganda for the IRA, at least let them listen to those who have to live with the threat of the IRA day in and day out.

Mr. Derek Conway: Conservative Members do not like it either. No one wants the Act to come before the House. What the hon. Gentleman misunderstands about our position is that we also want to prevent terrorism. The whole point of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was saying is that the power to issue exclusion orders was used only twice last year. The hon. Gentleman is right: there must be reasonable doubt. Until he sees that the purpose is prevention rather than punishment, the Labour party will not gain the respect it should for its so-called tough stand on crime.

Mr. Blair: That is the very question which fell to be considered. Does the advantage of the exclusion order, in the small number of cases to which it is applied, outweigh the disadvantages so well known to those who live and work in Northern Ireland? On balance, are those people better off or worse off? The independent advisers concluded that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages, and that is our conclusion, too. I am not saying that that conclusion is obvious, or that no reasonable person could reach a different view, but I ask the hon. Gentleman at least to accept that our objections are not being raised lightly or superficially. They are objections which can be sustained, even on the basis of the reports of the Government's own advisers.
Judicial intervention is the second ground of objection. This is perhaps the most important point that we can make. Under the criminal law, as set out in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, a suspect, whether it be a murderer, an armed robber, or a rapist, can be held for up to 36 hours. After that time, the suspect must be brought before the court. The court then has the power to detain further, prior to a charge being made.
Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the initial period is 48 hours, not 36 hours. That is one difference. The principal difference, however, is that after 48 hours the Secretary of State is given the power to extend detention for up to another five days, making seven in all. The Prevention of Terrorism Act therefore allows an extension of detention not by the judiciary but by the Executive.
It must be accepted, as it was accepted when the power was introduced, that prima facie the power is offensive to the basic principle of the rule of law, which is that deprivation of liberty should be through the courts and not through politicians.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the preservation of life is an even more important principle, and that the precise reason why this power must lie with the Executive and not with the courts is because the information which leads the Executive to believe that the man is a terrorist is of a nature which cannot be given in open court on account of the danger to the lives of witnesses? Those extra five days give the police the opportunity to find information which can be used in court.

Mr. Blair: The hon. Gentleman has made two points. I shall deal in turn with each of them.
The hon. Gentleman said that these matters cannot be dealt with in open court. No one has ever suggested that they should be dealt with in open court. The courts have the power to sit in camera. That power would be used in such a situation. The hon. Gentleman also said—the Secretary of State says it, too, when he is being somewhat


economical with the truth in these matters—that after four days the extra period of detention is necessary or we may let out a terrorist. In other words, we may just about be putting our hands on the evidence that we are missing when the detention period ends and we have to let the terrorist out.
That is a misunderstanding of what has been said. Nobody suggests that we should abrogate the detention period. What is being said is that the decision whether it should be extended should be a judicial decision and not an Executive decision.

Mr. Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to come back on that point?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blair: I will deal with the point, and then I will give way. The Home Secretary often gave way to me, so I will give way to him.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Blair: Very well.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) talked about the efficacy of detention. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past 19 years, 7,192 people have been detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, of whom precisely six have been convicted of crimes and given sentences of more than five years? Is he further aware that four of those were the Maguire family, who were found to have been wrongfully convicted? Far from this power being efficacious during that period, there have been 148 terrorist offences, 60 people have been killed, and the people for whom this legislation was driven through Parliament—the Birmingham pub bombers—are still at large after 19 years.

Mr. Blair: My right hon. Friend makes a point to which had intended to turn: why it is so important that we should be vigilant about the way in which these powers are used. Given that the vast majority of people are not then charged with any offence, as Members of Parliament we should at least look at whether the powers that we are granting to the Executive are justified. Such a situation should be tolerated only if the powers can be proved to be absolutely necessary to secure evidence against terrorists.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman does not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who was nodding vigorously a few moments ago. He said that the Act should never have been passed in the first place. He plainly misunderstands the purpose of the Act, which is to prevent terrorism, not to give rise to convictions. The point is not to wait until the bomb has gone off and then try to convict somebody afterwards. The point is to prevent them from committing an act of terrorism in the first place.
Presumably the hon. Gentleman is aware of the passages in Lord Colville's current report about why these issues are not justiciable, if I may use that technical phase. It is right that when I exercise Executive powers they should be subject to judicial supervision. That is what Lord Colville is for: he finds that the powers are being exercised properly; he recommends their renewal.
The hon. Gentleman is really burnt up with civil liberties issues. Is he saying that I am not exercising the powers properly? Can he look across at me with a straight face and say that he believes that people's civil liberties are being damaged? The powers are used against someone only when I am satisfied—and I insist that I should be satisfied—that there is a serious public interest involved in using them. Frankly, the hon. Gentleman is irresponsible in engaging in debating games with his right hon. Friend and others to try to justify voting against the powers at the end of the debate.

Mr. Blair: I did not notice any refutation by the Home Secretary of the point that I was making. He says that I am becoming burnt up about civil liberties. These are serious powers. They are virtually unique in the western world. I hope that no hon. Member will say that we do not have the right to challenge powers to make sure that they are in accordance with the civil liberties of our country.
The Home Secretary says that he is satisfied that the powers are being used reasonably. If the fact that the Executive had said that they were using such powers properly was enough for any House of Commons, it would mean that we had given up the right that we have always had to separate the powers of the judiciary and of the Executive.
The purpose of judicial intervention—which the Home Secretary appears, with all due respect, not even to understand—is to make sure that the powers of detention, extraordinary as they are, are exercised in a proper way. It is not good enough to say that the Home Secretary will exercise them in a proper way, because the very principle of the rule of law is that that decision should be made by a court, not by a politician.

Mr. Clarke: This important point seems to be the key to the hon. Gentleman's concern. I am sure that he accepts that I believe in civil liberties just as much as he does. However, I do not ask either the hon. Gentleman or the House just to accept my assertion that my use of the powers is consistent with our common view of civil liberties. I am subject to judicial supervision. That is what Lord Colville is for. [Interruption.] Lord Colville is not a High Court judge. I believe that he sits as a recorder. He exercises a judicial style of review. He says, on supervision, that I exercise my powers properly.
Does the hon. Gentleman disbelieve Lord Colville? Does he have any ground for asserting that Lord Colville is wrong? Does he have any ground for asserting that I am not using the powers consistently with civil liberties? Or is he, as I insist, desperately casting about for reasons to vote against the use of powers which he knows are necessary and which he also knows perfectly well are exercised properly and with discretion by the Executive?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There have been a number of interventions, to which, of course, I have no objection, but they are getting longer and longer.

Mr. Blair: I shall try to make my answer short.
That is an extraordinary thing for the Home Secretary to say. Lord Colville was appointed by the Government. He does not sit in a judicial capacity. It is not that he is biased, any more than anyone else is biased, but surely the Home Secretary, of all people, can tell the difference between an adviser appointed by the Government or a


member of the Cabinet and a member of the judiciary. That is at the very heart of and is the basis for the British rule of law.
It is extraordinary that the Home Secretary should say that an adviser to the Government—[Interruption.] I can agree or disagree, but to say that having a judge consider a provision is the same as having a Cabinet Minister consider a particular case is utterly absurd.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Blair: Just a moment.
That is, of course, why the European Court of Human Rights found against the Government. It found against the Government not because of some technicality or legalism, but because the notion that one should be detained by Executive power rather than by order of the court is contrary to the provisions of the convention on human rights. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot understand that, he cannot understand the basis of British law.

Mr. Clarke: I shall make a short intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. Lord Colville advises that I am using the powers properly. Does the hon. Gentleman agree or disagree with that? He skipped over that suggestion. If he does not agree, why not?

Mr. Blair: I have no means of knowing whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is using the powers properly or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course I have not. The issue is not whether he is using his powers correctly. We passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 so that, after 36 hours, a person should be brought before a judge. We did not say that he should be brought before a civil servant or a politician but a judge. Let me educate Conservative Members. It is important that the power is vested in a court because in this country we believe that powers of detention should be exercised by courts, not by politicians, civil servants or parts of the Executive.
As a result of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the IRA has been handed a massive propaganda weapon, which it uses. We have had to derogate from the convention, and our reputation abroad is attacked as a transgressor of human rights. All that could be avoided, and the fight against terrorism strengthened, if we were to comply with the ruling.
Listening to the Home Secretary, one would think that it was the most extraordinary proposition that a judge should be involved rather than the Secretary of State. When the European Court of Human Rights first made its decision, in the Brogan case, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, said that his preferred route was judicial intervention. In other words, the very suggestion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman today decries as an extraordinary breach of the necessary means to fight terrorism was proposed as the preferred route by the current Foreign Secretary.
Conservative Members may disagree with our proposals, but to claim that the suggestion that someone who is detained should have the right to go before a judge rather than a politician is an outrageous breach of what we need to fight terrorism stands sense, reason and decency on its head. To describe that position as soft on terrorism and

to decry it as giving succour to terrorists says far more about the desperation of the Conservative party than about the fight against terrorism.
All hon. Members abhor terrorism. Everyone believes that we must act against it with all the powers we have. Of course that might involve measures which restrict civil liberty in a way which may otherwise be repugnant. However, if we go beyond what is necessary to combat terrorism effectively, if we cravenly accept that any Act introduced by the Government and entitled "Prevention of Terrorism Act" must be supported in its entirety without question, and if we adopt the attitude that anyone who dares to question it is a closet supporter of terrorism, we do not strengthen the fight against terrorism: we weaken it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is too much noise. Hon. Members know that, if the hon. Member who has the floor does not give way, they must resume their seats.

Mr. Blair: I am not giving way, because we need to make progress—[Interruption.]
Conservative Members who are barracking now should read reports of earlier debates on the issue. Some Conservative Members who are not in the Chamber—the present Leader of the House, for example—spoke of their distaste for the renewal of the provisions. I fully accept that they supported the provisions, but they were at least prepared to consider the case against them.
There is something very distasteful about Conservative Members' refusal today even to listen to the points being made. Since the exclusion orders were denounced by the Government's own advisers, and in view of the fact that a judicial intervention power was accepted by earlier Home Secretaries as not inhibiting the work of the security services, nothing that we are proposing would inhibit the security services or the police in the fight against terrorism. Nothing in our proposals would mean that recent arrests or fines would have been hindered. Suggestions to the contrary are merely crude propaganda of the most unworthy kind.
Let us be clear. The reason why the Government refuse even to talk to us about the legislation, despite the fact that our suggestions are being supported by their advisers and were previously contemplated by them, is that crime is doubling. The Government are losing the debate on law and order. They would prefer to disagree for the sake of the Tory party than agree for the sake of the country.
What we are asking the Government to do would in no way hinder the fight against terrorism. Indeed, it would allow us to present our case in the courts of the world with much greater conviction. I urge the Government even now to take the partisan nature of their debating out of the issue, to unite our parties, the House and the country in defence of our democracy and not to play politics with the issue.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House of what Madam Speaker said earlier. Many hon. Members are anxious to participate, but there is not a great deal of time, so could speeches please be kept as short as possible?

Sir John Wheeler: I shall try to abide by your wishes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and be brief.
I agree to a certain extent with the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). The annual debate on the renewal of the Act is very serious and important. No hon. Member, regardless of the party to which he belongs, willingly or easily agrees to the curtailment of liberty or a change in the normal procedures for the management of the criminal justice system. To that extent, I agree with him. Unlike him, however, I shall vote to renew the order tonight.
The cat leaped out of the bag when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he was opposed to the whole concept of the Act, as he is entitled to be. It became clear that the Labour party is divided on the issue. That is the difficulty facing the hon. Member for Sedgefield.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Wheeler: I shall not give way, because I intend to be brief.
The difficulty faced by the hon. Member for Sedgefield is that he does not have a united party and policy behind him.
We have been debating for some time but, so far, we have not mentioned the victims of terrorism. On the Treasury Bench today I see the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office—my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates)—and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. They have the awesome, gruesome task of appearing before the people of Northern Ireland week after week when an outrage has occurred. We know from the television news at the weekend and over the past few days how dreadful those outrages have been. My hon. Friends have to explain to the public exactly what the Government and the security forces are doing. We know of the horrors inflicted on ordinary people and their families. People are injured, maimed and killed; people have to suffer the consequences of that horror for the rest of their lives.
It behoves us to tackle the problem in the House, and to think about the victims as well as the arguments about civil liberties and the intervention of the criminal justice system.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Sir John Wheeler: I intend to be fair, I want to be brief, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall continue, if my hon. Friend will allow me.
I feel able to support the renewal of the Act because I too have read the independent report of my noble and learned Friend Viscount Colville. I have it before me now. Lord Colville is a distinguished member of the Bar, a distinguished Queen's counsel. In his statement to the Secretary of State on 10 February, he said:
The Act ought, I recommend, to continue in force in its entirety for another twelve months".
He did not say, "Some part of the Act should be excluded from renewal"; he said, "in its entirety".
Lord Colville reviewed the operation of the Act in various ways. His report to the Home Secretary refers to

exclusion orders, which have been the subject of considerable debate. Exclusion orders are now being used less and less. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made only two exclusion orders in 1992, one of which was in respect of a man at the end of a 24-year prison sentence. The House may divine from the latter information that there were real reasons why my right hon. and learned Friend made the order relating to that individual. Twenty-one other orders were renewed.
Examining the operation of those procedures, Lord Colville said:
The machinery is working effectively. The police themselves initiate the process, when orders are due to expire".
My right hon. and learned Friend has to examine carefully a detailed brief before he agrees to the exclusion order.
By far the most important part of the Act, and the reason why we should renew it tonight, is the power to detain people while inquiries are being made. The public outside the House and the people listening to the debate would be astounded if, in the present circumstances, the House of Commons were to say that we would handicap the police in the course of their investigations. It is only fair and right that the police should have reasonably granted powers, because in the course of their inquiries they have to use forensic services, which require time—not merely hours but sometimes two, three or more days—especially when guns and explosives are the subject of the investigations. To deny the police the use of that time would be criminal in itself, and entirely wrong. The power should continue.
It is said that the decision should be transferred from the Secretary of State to a High Court judge. However, when I was a magistrate and had to consider whether to grant or withhold bail, I sat in an administrative capacity, not in a judicial capacity in which I would have been deciding the guilt or innocence of an individual. I was deciding, on the balance of the information presented to me, whether I should allow a person freedom on bail or withhold his liberty. Precisely the same process is in play when considering whether to detain someone under the Act.
One of the key factors in the decision is time. The Home Secretary must make the decision rapidly. As the House knows, such events occur dramatically and suddenly, when the police make an arrest and require further time for forensic and other inquiries, or wish to apprehend other potential suspects. They require an immediate decision from my right hon. and learned Friend. I see no advantage to the cause of civil liberty in transferring that burden and obligation from the Home Secretary's desk to the desk of a High Court judge.
I have heard references to the practices of continental Europe, but when I examine the administrative procedures of France or Germany, to my horror I discover that people can be detained without trial not only for weeks but often for months. We in this country would not find that tolerable, so I see no comfort in looking to the procedures of continental Europe for a comparison with our decision on the procedures in the Act.
I have consulted the police. They do a difficult arid dangerous job on behalf of the public in the United Kingdom. We ought to be grateful to them for the work they do in trying to prevent and contain terrorism. The police are successful, and they believe that they should be given the powers. They do not especially welcome such


powers. They prefer to operate not exceptionally but within the curtilage of the normal criminal justice process, but they are firmly of the opinion that for the time being the powers should be retained.
The House does not have to agree simply because the police say so, but we certainly ought to listen to the voices of the people in the front line of the investigation and containment of terrorism.
For those practical reasons, I shall vote for renewal of the Act. I shall not do so lightly. I agree with the hon. Member for Sedgefield that this is a serious matter. It is indeed right that we should pause and ask whether it is really necessary to continue with the Act. I reluctantly come to the conclusion that, for the time being, we should, so I urge my hon. Friends and all other hon. Members to agree to the renewal of the Act for a further 12 months, as was recommended independently by Lord Colville.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I begin by agreeing with a least two things that the Home Secretary said. First, in reply to an intervention, he said that terrorism in Northern Ireland was becoming less and less political and more and more a feature of gangsterism. The more often that we can say that, the better it will be for all parties involved. I have no doubt that it is true.

Mr. Mallon: I apologise for asking the right hon. Gentleman to give way immediately, but what he has said is entirely wrong. We under-estimate terrorism if we look upon it as gangsterism. Every murder committed by paramilitary groups is a political murder for a political purpose. We under-estimate what we are dealing with if we regard it simply as gangsterism.

Mr. Hattersley: Because of my respect for the hon. Gentleman, I am glad that I gave way to him in order to allow him to register his disagreement—but I believe that he will probably agree more with the rest of what I say.
I congratulate the Home Secretary on his decision to toughen the regulations governing terrorist finances, and to make the law in England more comparable with that which already exists in Northern Ireland, I urged his predecessor to do that last year, when the order was renewed, and I urged him to do so the year before. On both occasions, he swept aside the idea with something approaching disdain.
I suppose that I could then have toured the country saying that the Government were soft on terrorist finance, but that did not seem to me to be an especially grown-up way to behave. I do not believe that it is especially grown-up for the Home Secretary to have produced a mirror image of such behaviour when we advanced rational arguments.
The Home Secretary has the habit of saying the first thing that comes into his head and hoping that, if he is sufficiently emphatic, people will believe it. Several times he challenged my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to say whether he agreed with Lord Colville's judgment that he, the Home Secretary, had behaved properly under the order. Lord Colville says no such thing. He says that the Home Secretary has observed the terms of the Act and that he has applied the criteria as set down in the legislation. Our entire argument is that the criteria are

wrong and that the terms of the legislation need to be changed. The idea that Lord Colville has endorsed everything that the Home Secretary has done in principle and in practice during his 11 months in office is simply wrong.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield on the quality of his speech and on his proposal for all-party talks in the hope that there could be a consensus on how to deal with terrorism. All-party agreement would be very much better on this matter, but it cannot come about as a result of the Government stating what they want and expecting everyone else to fall into line. Before this Parliament is over, the Government will discover that Governments with small majorities cannot behave in that way. They will discover that, if they want some co-operation, they must offer some co-operation to other parties.
I have no doubt that it would have been very much better if that had been done today, although I am not surprised that it has not been. The Government prefer to posture as the only true enemy of terrorism rather than pursue the rational course and deal with the provisions on their merits. I shall attempt to do that in one limited area. Because of the limitation of time, I shall not speak about exclusion orders, of which I very much disapprove.
I shall talk about no aspects of the provisions except the powers of detention and extended detention under the Act. I shall at once make my position on the history of the Act clear. I was opposed to it when it was introduced. I was involved in its conception because five of my constituents were killed in the Birmingham pub bombing. With the then Home Secretary, I went to Birmingham in the early hours of the day following that atrocity. Then, and subsequently, I was opposed to the Act.
During the past 14 or 15 years, I have sometimes been convinced that some special powers are needed to deal with terrorism. In my case, that has been a move in a more authoritarian direction rather than the reverse. As I now believe that some special powers may be necessary, all I shall do is consider what those powers should be and how they should be administered.
We have to begin with the question of the purpose of section 14. From time to time—I have spoken in many of these debates over the past 10 years—different arguments have been advanced about why section 14 is needed. On one occasion, the Minister of State, Home Office, who is now, incredibly, the Secretary of State for Education, asked me to understand that it was necessary because men with guns and explosives had been found in the garden of the Secretary of State for Defence. I offered the view that if someone with guns and explosives was found in my garden, I should expect him to be arrested and prosecuted whether there was a Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act or not.
Two years later, the then Minister of State gave the explanation that the Home Secretary has given today—that it is necessary to arrest persons who have not committed a crime but who are assumed to be likely to commit crimes or to co-operate in the commission of crimes. Even as one describes that proposal, one realises how anti-libertarian it is. Men who, on the Home Secretary's criteria, have done nothing for which they can be prosecuted must necessarily be arrested in the belief that they may in some way that the Home Office and the police


cannot describe be involved in the future commission of a crime. One may have to take such action, but one must be very careful about the procedure by which it is carried out.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I see the Home Secretary rising. I give way to him, but because of time, I shall not give way again.

Mr. Clarke: I give a short example. Under the Act, a request may be made to the Secretary of State for an extension of detention beyond 48 hours to allow investigations to continue. I have known of cases in which, after the extension has been given, the suspect has started to answer questions when interviewed by the police although he has refused to do so before. That can lead to the discovery of equipment, the discovery of weapons and the interception of other people who are still pursuing the criminal conspiracy.
In many such cases, sufficient evidence will never emerge against the person detained to lead to that person being charged with an offence. It may happen that the offence contemplated never occurs, because we have had exceptional powers to deal with terrorism. It is important that a distinction is made between the worst terrorist cases and the ordinary operation of the law. I have given an example of how the extra detention can lead to the frustration of terrorist acts, although not necessarily to anyone being charged. That is a perfectly proper exercise of my role in the protection of the public against terrorism.

Mr. Hattersley: The examples that Lord Colville gives in his report are very different from those that the Home Secretary asks us to examine. The examples given by Lord Colville might well occur in normal criminal prosecutions. A man shoots at a car and the driver is injured, but not killed. A man is apprehended and it takes more than three days to carry out the necessary forensic tests. Such a problem can arise in a shooting that does not have a terrorist connotation. All Lord Colville's examples in the report are very different from those that the Home Secretary has used in his attempt to convince us today.
I am prepared to believe that there may be occasions on which the extension is needed. The question is how the extension should be carried out against the background of what results from detention and its extension. Lord Colville's report tells us that, in 1990, 193 men and women were detained. Only 28 were charged and only six of them were charged with terrorist offences. In 1991, 153 men and women were detained and only four were charged. Last year, 126 men and women were detained and 30 were charged. That means that, although many people are held under these powers, at the end of the interrogation, which the Home Secretary has told us is likely to be so effective because it is prolonged, only one quarter at best are charged with any criminal offences.
The Home Secretary cannot take lightly the idea that numbers of men and women are held for 36 hours, for 48 hours or for seven days in police custody and then turned out without any charge being brought against them.
The suspicion that has always run through these debates is that men and women have been held under this power not because it was anticipated that they would be charged, but because it was thought that they would provide information. On one occasion, the then Home

Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, admitted that that was a proper use of the Act. The Home Secretary now says that it is a proper use of the Act.

Mr. Clarke: No.

Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way in a moment.
The Home Secretary must remember that using the Act to trawl for information was a purpose of the Act which his Government specifically recanted when they went to the European Court of Justice. Sir Leon Brittan was disowned at the court. The Home Secretary's immediate predecessor said last year and the year before that the Act was never used for that purpose. If the Home Secretary wants to tell me now that it is, I shall give way.

Mr. Clarke: This is the point that I tried to make at the beginning of my speech. The Act exists to assist the prevention and investigation of terrorism. How many of those detained were charged is not a measure of its success. Of course it is important that people are not detained at whim and that we do not go on fishing expeditions. I have to be satisfied that there is a good and substantial reason for the individual to be detained. It is no good saying afterwards, "You may have recovered 10 tonnes of Semtex, but you have not been able to bring a charge against the person you detained." I regard it as a successful use of the Act if we have got the tonnes of Semtex even if nobody can be charged, because what was intended as a major terrorist outrage never actually took place, thanks to the use of the powers under the Act.

Mr. Hattersley: If the Home Secretary is making a second change of attitude and saying that the powers are being used for what I believe his profession calls fishing expeditions, the queue at the European Court will be a mile long, since the last judgment against the Government was minimised because the Government's representative was explicit in saying that the powers were not used for that purpose.
I say without hesitation that I am opposed to the arrest of men and women against whom no charge is likely or possible simply in order to obtain information from them. That is not consistent with the rule of law in a free society. Men and women who are deprived of their liberty by being held temporarily in custody—"temporarily" meaning seven days in this context—ought only to be men and women against whom a charge is at least possible, whether or not it is likely. Now that the Home Secretary has changed his attitude and has admitted that the Act is being used for this purpose, I believe that we will return to the subject time after time.
One reason why I want to see judicial intervention is that I do not believe that the Act would be used for fishing expeditions were that a feature of its operation. I now begin to understand one reason why the Government do not want judicial intervention; it would be difficult for them to say to a judge, "We have not got anything against this man but we want to hold him in peculiar circumstances under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act in the hope that we may obtain information from him."

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: Mr. Deputy Speaker asked us to be brief. I have given way twice already. On both occasions the Home Secretary's interventions were almost as long as my speech.

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I have not given way yet. The Home Secretary must learn how the House operates. I will give way to the Home Secretary on the understanding that on this occasion he will be brief. Is that agreed?

Mr. Clarke: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I have not given way to him yet. If he will be brief, I will give way to him. Is that agreed?

Mr. Clarke: Yes, I will be brief. The right hon. Gentleman obviously misheard me a moment ago. I said that we do not use the powers for fishing expeditions. We detain people only when we are satisfied that there is sufficient evidence or information to justify keeping them, but it is a successful use of the powers to prevent and investigate terrorism. It is not an accurate test to say that the person should necessarily be charged at the end. Great success may be achieved without the charging of the person properly detained.

Mr. Hattersley: Now that the Home Secretary and I have developed a proper relationship across the Floor of the House, let me say to him that if that was what he meant, it was not what he said. If it was what he intended to say, it is not consistent with the figures. The figures make it clear that only a tiny proportion of the men and women who are held are charged. That can only mean that what the Home Secretary appeared to say a moment ago is fact.
I want to pursue the crucial and central question of judicial intervention, but before that I want to make one other point clear. Over the past five years, I have taken part in innumerable radio and television programmes about men and women who have been wrongfully convicted. Inevitably the Home Office Minister who appeared with me said that there was nothing to worry about because those men and women had been convicted before the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which meant that such a catastrophe could never occur again.
The Home Secretary must understand, as Lord Colville makes clear in this year's report, that were any of those people, who were so cruelly mistreated by the misapplication of the law and wrongful conviction, brought to court again, they would not have the full protection of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; they would have the protection of that Act as modified by the prevention of terrorism Act. They would not get access to their solicitor at the same time as a man or woman who was charged under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. When I hear the Home Secretary say that, if people are kept in a long time, and if they know that their detention has been extended, they are more likely to talk, the overtones of the Birmingham pub bombing and of the Maguire case ring clearly round the Chamber. [Interruption.] That is what the Home Secretary said, as the record tomorrow will show clearly. He is dealing lightly with the fundamental concept of civil liberty which he, perhaps more than any other Minister, ought to preserve.
Many or perhaps all of the problems could be overcome if the Government would agree to a judge taking the decision on the extension of the detention order. That is necessary in principle because it is wrong in our sort of democracy that a Minister should have the right to

imprison a man or woman for seven days. It does not matter how assiduous the Minister is in reading the papers, or whether he is a genuine or a bogus libertarian; it does not even matter if he is an ex-libertarian who is ambitious for high office. It is wrong in principle that a politician should be enabled to keep a man or woman in custody for seven days.
My fears, which the Home Secretary says are groundless, about fishing expeditions or people being likely to talk when they are locked up for a long time are much more likely to be avoided if at some point evidence is presented to a judge explaining why that man or woman is there. The explanation might even be that described by the Home Secretary in his third interpretation of what he said first. Whatever the reason, it could be put to a judge, who would make the judgment.
It has been said that, by giving the information to a judge, one would be risking further crimes being committed. I trust judges enough to believe that they could be given such information in camera and it would remain secure. That is all we are asking for. If that happened, many of our fears would be removed. We would no longer be at variance with the European Court of Human Rights and we would no longer have to have the derogation from section 5 of the document to which we are a party.
The Home Secretary seems to think that what Lord Colville said last year or the year before he no longer believes unless he issues an official confirmation. I assure the Home Secretary that if he reads all Lord Colville's reports he will find that three years ago Lord Colville said that a bold new initiative was necessary to replace the extension of detention order. He said that that initiative should be based on the Scottish or Isle of Man methodology. "Methodology" is not a word of my invention or of common use, but that is what Lord Colville said and that is what the Government should do.
I conclude by telling the Home Secretary what I thought he knew: his immediate predecessor but two, the present Foreign Secretary, told me that that was the scheme which he would like to see in operation. I saw the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary at the time we were arraigned before the European Court. I asked him whether we could conform to European practice by having a judge decide the necessity for the extended detention. There was no secret about it; the then Home Secretary told me that that was his preferred solution but that the judiciary would not have it. There was speculation between us as to why that was so. I came to the conclusion that the judiciary would have it if the House passed a law because, if the obligation was placed on them by Parliament, they would fulfil it.
When our argument provokes from the Home Secretary the response that we are pandering to terrorism, that is the most pathetically second-rate reaction imaginable, even from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches are just as much subject to the discipline of the Chair as any other hon. Member. I will not allow cross-party conversations.

Mr. Hattersley: Perhaps this comes as news to the Home Secretary, but at the meeting of the general council of the Bar in the summer, I discussed the matter with the Attorney-General and other barristers. We all knew that a


past Home Secretary wanted that solution and there was discussion about whether the judges were right to reject it. I say only this to the Home Secretary. Some of us who believe that the fight against terrorism will be won only if the Government abide by the rule and the spirit of t he law will go on arguing the case made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield.
It is not because we are soft on terrorism but because we are rational about it. Terrorism will not be defeated by a party which has a political advantage or has some sort of primeval reflex rather than thinking about the real methods of bringing terrorism to an end.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: A sense of deja vu returns as we canter through our annual debate, with many familiar faces from previous years and at least a hint of some of the speeches from previous years.
The essence of the debate is how to perform the balancing act between a proactive response to terrorism and safeguarding civil liberties. A delicate balancing act must be performed. I do not for one moment challenge the sincerity of Labour Members when they pronounce their determination to see terrorism effectively combated. My argument is with the means to achieve that.
Listening carefully to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) this afternoon, I had difficulty not so much with the points that he made, which are valid and worthy of debate, as with the fact that I cannot see that the distance between his point of view and that which is contained in the Act is sufficiently great to justify his party in not voting for the order. In other words, I feel that the hon. Gentleman would prefer the provisions to be in place rather than having no provisions at all, which is surely the implication of his voting against them.
To be brief because we are short of time, I wish simply to select three points from the report itself. Arguably, the report has received little attention in this debate. First, I refer to page 4 and the section on exclusions. I have certainly learnt something from the Home Secretary today about Lord Colville's attitude on exclusions which I did not previously realise. I was under the impression that Lord Colville had historic doubts about exclusion.
I specifically notice that, in paragraph 4, Lord Colville refers to the instance of a citizen of the Republic of Ireland being the subject of an exclusion order and being deported to Northern Ireland. I believe that it is the first time that that has happened. That raises serious questions and must be examined. Should not restrictions placed on deportation against a citizen of the Republic of Ireland be examined more carefully?
The second point relates to the comments on the statistics. Lord Colville acknowledges that we must be wary of percentages as an indication of the success or otherwise of the measures. Trends reflect more the level of terrorism than the effectiveness of the measures. I entirely endorse the conclusion that Prevention of Terrorism Act powers are a deterrent, the effectiveness of which it is impossible to prove. Although the effectiveness of the powers is impossible to prove, they are essential.
I am anxious to be brief. My final point relates to my concern about section 5 and the financing of terrorism. If I understood my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary correctly, he puts a different interpretation on the situation from Lord Colville's. Lord Colville refers to

section 13 and schedules 4 and 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. He acknowledges that the complexities are great but says:
so far there have been no prosecutions nor money confiscated.
That is an alarming state of affairs. I therefore fully endorse the suggestion that the Criminal Justice Bill, which is now before the House of Lords, should be examined thoroughly to see whether more effective measures are needed.
On page 19, Lord Colville raises another issue:
the extent to which the PTA is able to catch fund raising in the UK which is intended to provide for internecine conflicts overseas.
That is a subject which we have debated previously. Certainly, in the past I should have liked to see organisations of other countries prosecuted for their activities in London, but successive Home Secretaries have seen the dangers of that and I wonder whether we should tread more carefully than Lord Colville suggests. It may be difficult to take action against other countries' organisations; after all, today's freedom fighter could be tomorrow's terrorist.
My essential point is that I have no qualms or hesitations about these provisions. It is essential that they be renewed and I look forward to that.

Mr. David Trimble: I shall try to be as brief as possible in the present circumstances. I begin by thanking Lord Colville for his report. The frequency of quotations by both sides of the House from Colville past and present is eloquent testimony to the value of his report.
Lord Colville makes the point that the only thing that we can do today is renew the Act or not. We cannot make proposals for change, although in such debates we take the opportunity to air matters which we hope that the Home Office will take on board for future reviews. There is a pressing need for some decent parliamentary scrutiny of this issue. Clearly, this kind of annual debate is inadequate, and today's will be more inadequate than usual due to the lack of time. It is time for proper thought to be given to proper parliamentary scrutiny of these matters on a more continuous basis.
I find myself in the curious position of supporting the renewal of the legislation, although I have considerable sympathy with the two ranges of objections made by the Labour party. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) quoted the comments of the former Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, in 1987. We stand for those comments completely; we still do not like exclusion orders, and we believe that the practice should be discountined because it is fundamentally wrong.
The hon. Gentleman's second range of objections referred to the detention power and what we call the Brogan point. I regard the Brogan point as more of a technicality. The substance of the matter is that persons being detained and questioned are treated much better in the United Kingdom than on the continent. Reference has been made to the way in which persons can be detained on the continent for months on end. It is a problem of a different legal culture and the custom of having a juge d'instruction in the continental system.
Because of the propaganda point involved and because it involves our derogating on this small point, I wish that


the Home Office would examine the issue more closely. I agree that a High Court judge cannot be involved because he would be involved in any subsequent trial, which completely rules him out. Nor could the job be given to magistrates because of the uneven quality of the magistracy—I say no more on that.
As Lord Colville said, we must look to the practice in Scotland with the procurator fiscal and the practice in the Channel Islands. We must also look at what was recommended in Northern Ireland in 1971 by the MacDermott report—that something equivalent to the juge d'instruction should be introduced. It would not need to be introduced for all cases; it could be introduced for these cases only.
The Brogan case did not require matters to be brought before a court. It used the term "judicial officer". A judicial officer could be created for the purpose of approving extensions. The same person could do the job currently done by Sir Louis Blom Cooper and his deputies with regard to supervising detention. That would be a more favourable way of doing it.
None the less, those matters are technicalities and are not sufficient grounds for voting against the legislation as a whole. I hope that the Labour party will continue to reconsider the matter. There is a change of tone, certainly between last year and this year: the Labour party has reduced its objections from three in 1992 to two in 1993. I hope that that trend will continue and that the Labour party will adopt a more sensible position. Labour Members have put on record their objections to the technicalities, but one way of showing that they are concerned simply with those particular aspects and are not opposed to the fight against terrorism generally is by declining to divide the House later this evening. That would be a fair and balanced way of doing it.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has accepted Lord Colville's suggestion to table amendments to the financial aspects of the Criminal Justice Bill. Financial powers need to be strengthened—even those in the emergency provisions are not working particularly successfully. The Home Secretary should take on board the relationship between financing terrorism and drugs. Terrorist organisations are deeply involved with drugs, and legislation to combat that problem is not very effective. It should be more effective on both counts.
The Home Secretary should also address the issue raised on page 17 of the report in relation to conspiracy offences. I am not sure whether the present Criminal Justice Bill does so. If it does not, will the Home Secretary ensure that it does?
As I have said on previous occasions, there is a need for a coherent United Kingdom provision on terrorism. We have a patchwork of overlapping provisions which operate as a code. The legislation is vital for the police and the Army in Northern Ireland as it is their chief arresting power. We need a more coherent provision.
I shall not explore the subject of the present structures operating in Great Britain as it comes under the Sheehy inquiry. Thought must be given to the structure and approach in Great Britain. The Home Secretary referred to the way in which the security service—MI5—has been brought in. I am not reassured by that, as MI5 has been involved in Northern Ireland, where it has not covered

itself in glory, and I am not sure that it would do so here. We are discussing something which is fundamentally a police matter and should be treated as such. I do not think that bringing in overlapping agencies is the right solution. It may ultimately be correct to consider having a Great Britain or United Kingdom equivalent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or some such organisation, but bringing in the security forces is not a good idea.
Like the Home Secretary, I congratulate the police on the recent finds of explosives in London. I wish that the Home Secretary could say whether the explosives were home-grown or imported. Today's edition of the Evening Standard estimates that 10 tonnes of explosive material have been found in England since December. The well-informed security correspondent of The Irish Times —no snide comment intended—estimates that more than 20 tonnes of explosives were manufactured in Great Britain last year by the IRA.
The public should be made aware of that, alerted and told what to look for. Such matters cannot be dealt with in a hole-and-corner manner. The best assistance that we can have in defeating terrorism is the whole-hearted support of the people—and if we receive it, we should not call it collusion.
As other hon. Members have said, the provisions have been on the statute book for many years. Some people wrongly regard that as a reason for dispensing with them. I turn the argument around and say that the Government should think carefully and ask themselves why they have not yet succeeded. What have they been doing for the past 20 years to cause their failure? What should they be doing that they have not done for their past 20 years?
It is time to give serious consideration, not just to the security measures, but to the political context in which they operate. Mistakes have been made, and a mistaken approach adopted, over the past 20 years. It is time to give fresh thought to such fundamental matters. We hope that such action will result in not having to hold debates such as today's year after year.

Mr. Derek Conway: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), whose experience and bravery—and that of his colleagues from all the parties in Northern Ireland—are well recognised in the House. We pay tribute to them. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will know that the fear and practice of terrorism occurs not only in Ulster, some of our major regional cities, our capital city in England, but in my constituency of Shrewsbury. In August, the IRA bombed many shops in Shrewsbury and caused considerable destruction at Shrewsbury castle and the regimental museum. However, the IRA has not won, as the people of Shrewsbury and Shropshire are determined to ensure that the regimental museum is rebuilt, despite the best endeavours of the terrorists.
It is right that the House should place on record its congratulations to the police on their alertness in making the discovery that was announced today. It should also congratulate them on the many other occasions when they have done a superb job in preventing acts of terrorism, not just sought to bring to justice those who have committed such acts. The purpose of today's debate—albeit a brief debate—is to talk about prevention, not exclusively what happens afterwards. Our police and the security forces


have not only one of the most dangerous jobs, but are best equipped and trained to carry it out. Regrettably, they are also the most experienced people in Europe in dealing with the problem.
Is terrorism in decline? I do not think that anyone believes that that is true. How best can we help the security forces to fight on the community's behalf? This afternoon, Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—who made a speech more than 20 minutes long—have done nothing but wriggle. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 passed through Parliament only with the support of the then Conservative Opposition, who were not prepared to make partisan political points on an issue as important as the prevention of terrorism. It was ironic that the then Labour Government could get the Bill through the House of Commons only with Tory support, as 35 Labour Members opposed the measure.
The nub of the difficulty for the Opposition during the past 10 years has been that, since 1982, they have opposed the renewal of the Act every year except 1989, when the then Leader of the Opposition decided that it was time for positive leadership and ordered a three-line Whip for Members to abstain. Even then, 45 Labour Members voted against the Bill and against their leadership. Some of those Members now sit on the Labour party's Front Bench.
In 1987 the Labour party did not even mention prevention of terrorism in its manifesto, which shows the extent of its commitment to tackling the problem. In the Chamber today we have heard only empty rhetoric, which is a great pity. I have time and respect for the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I fought his constituency in 1974 and know the district he represents. I believe him to be an honourable man, but if he wants the general public or the House to believe that he is serious about crime, his performance this afternoon will not convince them.
The Labour party has been wriggling about the exclusion orders, two of which were imposed throughout 1992. If a Martian landed on Earth and listened to today's debate, it would think that the Home Secretary was authorising the order to be used on thousands of people, but only two such orders were made in 12 months. The Labour party has advanced its whingeing civil liberties without a reference to the civil liberties of those people who have been bombed, injured and killed.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, exclusion orders are used for prevention, not punishment. My newly elevated right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) made an apposite reference to the magistrates' powers of bail. That is not a judgment, but a preventive action—and an executive, not judicial, one at that.
It is a great pity that the debate is not longer as we could have examined more closely why the Labour party is not prepared to support the order. It has tried to persuade us that its argument is based on civil liberty grounds. We believe that it wants to appease a minority—but significant number—of Labour party members who do not want the prevention of terrorism measure at any price. They would not want it if the Labour party were in government and they do not while the party is in opposition. They determine to fight terrorism with empty words, and are not serious in their fight. No Conservative Member wants the prevention of terrorism Act. The question is whether we need it, and Conservatives believe that we do.
We need strengthened intelligence—as mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. 'We need to back the police. Above all—however cheap the heckling—we need to try to bring the Labour Front-Bench team back to the realisation that terrorism cares not a damn for civil liberties. The terrorists care only for the succour that they will receive when Labour Members vote against the order in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Neither constraints of time nor inclination will persuade me to follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), whose speech sits uneasily in the second half of the debate.
There must always be good and sound reasons for legislation of this nature. It inevitably places some categories of citizens in a less advantageous position than others. In truth, the legislation is discriminatory. Exclusion and detention detract from the civil rights of the citizen. The questions that we must answer are: whether the powers are justified and whether the price to be paid in terms of the freedom of a few is justified by the safety of the majority. Are we satisfied that, without the provisions, the police would be just as effective? It would be a confident Home Secretary who felt able to assert that these powers were not still necessary. Assertions that the powers are not necessary or that they should be diluted come rather more easily from those of us who do not have day-to-day responsibility for the terms of the legislation.
As I understand it, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) opposes exclusion orders as a matter of principle. I understand and accept that, but, if the challenge to exclusion orders is that they are ineffective, one must remember that their principal purpose is deterrence. In the field of human behaviour, it is rarely possible to be satisfied that a deterrent has been effective. If the power of exclusion is removed, we shall certainly find out whether it is a deterrent, but finding out may be uncomfortable and unpleasant.
We have discussed judicial intervention in detention orders. I mean the Home Secretary no injustice when I say that he came to the view that, at least in relation to England and Wales, such intervention was determined by practicality. There is much to be said for an element of judicial intervention. The question for the Opposition is whether the absence of an element of judicial intervention at the moment is sufficient reason to vote against the continuance of the order, with the consequent public perception. The hon. Member for Sedgefield makes a good case, but we are not at the Chancery Bar: we are engaged in giving what is inevitably a signal to the people of the United Kingdom about the House's resolution to combat terrorism.

Mr. Blair: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not, because time is short.
If the hon. Member for Sedgefield were on the Treasury Bench, he would face the dilemma of a genuine concern for public safety, against which he would have to balance some of what has been said by his party before today and


what he said in the debate. I rather fancy that, in that dilemma, the issue of public safety would prevail, and that would be perfectly understandable.

Mr. Blair: rose—

Mr. Campbell: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman but I am anxious to make progress.

Mr. Blair: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned me several times, I think that I am entitled to intervene. Perhaps he will confirm that what I said about the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights was accepted by his predecessor in previous debates on this matter. Secondly, in no way would judicial intervention lessen public safety. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that. However, it would mean that our law would be perceived to be fairer. In view of that, why does he urge me to change rather than urging change upon the Government, when he and his Front-Bench spokesmen used to agree with my position?

Mr. Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said about judicial intervention, he would have heard that there is much to be said for it. The question is whether it is legitimate today to vote against the continuation of the order because of an absence of judicial intervention, bearing in mind the public perception that will necessarily follow.
We should not vote for the continuance of the order because it will prevent terrorism or because it is a substitute for the due process of law, any more than we should vote for it because we think that that would give us some political advantage over other parties in the House. We should vote for it because it is a regrettable but necessary enhancement of police powers in an area in which the police need special assistance.
If all-party talks are offered or even discussed, they could proceed only upon unanimity of purpose in the House. Such unanimity would be best demonstrated by the order being approved without a Division.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is with great reluctance that I make the point, and I imply nothing in relation to the Chair. It is ironic that the section of the community that is most affected by the order has not been able to put its point of view in the House. I shall leave it at that.

Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I shall deal with the first point of order. I fully appreciate what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) says, but time is limited and there is nothing that the Chair can do about that.

Mr. McNamara: I would be more than happy to give two minutes to my hon. Friend to enable him to make his case so that both sides in Northern Ireland may be heard.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. If he gave me more time, I would thank him very much.

Mr. McNamara: I am giving time.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I have been allowed two minutes, but one gets used to such things when one is a member of a minority party. I shall have time to make just one point and will have to keep an eye on the clock.
This legislation has existed since 1974, and surely after so much time it merits re-examination. Such reexamination has been proposed, and it should come in the light of one question that I pose to the Government and the House. Despite the PTA and the whole battery of legislation, the number of troops that have been poured in, the £3 billion that have been thrown at the problem and the number of police and Army installations, why does terrorism continue in Northern Ireland? Despite internment, curfews and this legislation, why is it continuing?
The thesis that must be challenged is the one that says that the more troops and money and the more stringent the laws that are thrown at the problem, the more success, the more intelligence, the more arrests will result and terrorism will be defeated. That is patently erroneous. As the detection rates and the Secretary of State's figures show, the contrary is the case. The greater the intensity of security, as shown by this legislation, the more the community suffers. The more it suffers, the less hard intelligence is received by the security forces, and the terrorists laugh all the way to their next atrocity.
Let us not forget that the ideal context for the terrorist is the outward show of strength in the north of Ireland. The panoply of legislation is strangling the capacity of the security forces for detection. Those measures defeat their own purpose because communities are being held to ransom, mine more than any. That is why I am angry. That is why intelligence is not coming through. The methods are counter-productive, and by their use we have allowed the classic wasteland to develop. That is an ideal scenario for the terrorists to do as they do in places such as South Armagh. The result is that the detection rate goes down. We are approaching the issue in the wrong way. Let us have the courage to rethink.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McMamara).

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) for putting the debate in context. He has shown that all hon. Members share an abhorrence of terrorism and are united in the need to defeat the terrorist threat. Building upon that consensus, the Labour party called on the Government to seek all-party agreement on a counter-subversive policy that would be developed, in the words of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland,
to strike a balance between the need to detect and convict terrorists and the need to preserve basic civil liberties.
That offer has been rejected out of hand. 
Unlike the Conservative party, the Labour party does not want simply to hold up the prevention of terrorism Act as some kind of talisman to ward off evil terrorists, as legislation which takes no account of an individual's civil rights and which brings the law and the security forces into disrepute.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No, I shall not give way.
We want the exclusion order abolished because it violates at least six basic human rights, including the right of freedom of movement contained in article 2 of the fourth protocol of the European convention on human rights; the right to a fair and public trial contained in article 6; the right to respect for private and family life in article 8; the right to freedom of association in article 11; and rights to participate in public affairs and to seek work and improve economic circumstances. If there is insufficient evidence to bring a person before a court of law, there are insufficient grounds to impose internal exile. In a democratic society, the Government cannot simply ignore the due process whenever it is convenient to do so.
I have deliberately excluded various other matters in order to reduce the time of my speech, but I want specifically to turn to another part of the community which suffers inhibitions as a result of the legislation.
One of my hon. Friends spoke about the Irish in his constituency. A survey by the Irish Post found that one in 10 Irish males living in Britain have been detained under or affected by the prevention of terrorism Act. This harassment only adds to the sense of alienation felt by the Irish community in Britain. Although I am not suggesting that it leads people to support the IRA, it certainly does nothing to enhance their perception of the impartiality of the justice system in Britain.
The same survey found that, in the wake of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and other similar cases, 80 per cent. of the Irish in Britain doubted that they would receive a fair trial for a terrorist-related offence. Those figures starkly illustrate the legitimate fears of the largest ethnic group in Britain. While I accept criticisms of such a postal questionnaire, those who replied are the articulate, opinion-forming members of the Irish community.
The prevention of terrorism Act has only a symbolic value, but on this matter more than any other symbolic politics are not enough. The Government have tried to take the high moral ground in the fight against terrorism, and they singularly fail.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke about nitrates being used in explosives. I raised the matter with the Department in July; when I suggested that there might be reason to refer explosives and nitrates to the explosives inspectorate, I received the following reply:
I understand that ammonium nitrate is classified, in line with United Nations recommendations, as an oxidising substance rather than an explosive. It is in widespread use in agriculture, and the Health and Safety Executive has published guidance for its safe storage. I do not believe that any further controls would be workable. Accordingly, I have no plans to refer the matter to the explosives inspectorate." —[Official Report, 15 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 779.]
It took a couple more bombs and a few more threats for me to write to the Secretary of State and get a reply from Earl Ferrers that the Department had suddenly realised the importance of nitrate and its value to the terrorist.
Those are the people who say that we are complacent about the terrorist threat when something has been lying around the country and they are unable to deal with it. We are not having any of that from them, especially when it was not the Labour party that allowed the Harrods bombing suspects to remain at large in London for 33 days.
The chief crime correspondent of The Mail on Sunday, Chester Stern, wrote that MI5—the Minister praised MI5 for having control of the terrorist campaign—insisted on holding back video security tapes which led to the capture of the suspected terrorists within hours of them being screened publicly. Disagreements between the police and MI5, whom the Government have placed in charge of anti-terrorist observations, allowed suspected IRA bombers to roam the streets of London for over a month longer than necessary.
During that time, another bomb was placed on a rush hour train leaving Victoria station, and we had to wait until three days after the bombing in Camden for MI5 to relent and release the pictures. I am happy to say that the public reacted quickly and within hours two suspects were arrested.
The decision to adopt such a high-risk strategy, despite police objection, would never have been countenanced by a Labour Government. The Labour party has never put the lives of the people of London at risk in such an incredibly cavalier manner. The consequences of such a policy could easily have been death and mayhem in the streets of London.
The Government talk to us about being easy on terrorism. The evidence was there, but they wanted to play clever dicks, and as a result two further bombs were placed, possibly by those under suspicion. They had the evidence, they had the photographs, but they refused to release them, and those men were roaming the streets of London for 33 days.
That story has never once been challenged, denied or contradicted to The Mail on Sunday, its editor or the reporter: I checked that with them today. Let us have none of that nonsense from the Government, that somehow they are the only people who are hard on terrorism because they have the fig leaf of the prevention of terrorism Act, which does no good at all.

Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This afternoon, in my constituency, we buried a young man—[Interruption ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am trying to listen to the hon. Gentleman's point of order. It is difficult when there is so much noise in the Chamber.

Rev. William McCrea: This afternoon we buried a 25-year-old man in my constituency because of IRA terrorism. Can we hear what the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman has to say about the right to freedom of movement for Nigel McCollum, who was buried this afternoon? What about the right to family life— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for the Chair what the Front-Bench spokesmen of either party have to say.

Mr. McNamara: I have every sympathy with that family and with the families of all people who have been killed in terrorism in Northern Ireland, but I must say quite sincerely that it appears that the prevention of terrorism Act did not work in that sad case.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: First, I hope that I never see the day when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is responsible for operational


matters which hon. Members will have raised, even with the assistance of The Mail on Sunday. I am also sorry that I did not take up the invitation which he issued on behalf of the Opposition, when he was addressing the Machiavelli society at Hull university, to have talks on the renewal of the Act. However he and his hon. Friends made it quite clear that they are opposed to key provisions in the Act.
I have had robust support for our proposals from my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), among others. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), who has a liberal reputation and great expertise in these matters, supported them, and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) also said that the commonsense judgment was to renew these powers. The Ulster Unionists also support us.
I understand why the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) feels instinctively that we should not have exclusion orders, but I assure him that the exclusion orders which disrupt the traffic across the Irish sea—81 remain extant, although we made only two new ones last year—disrupt the effectiveness of the terrorist threat on both sides of the Irish sea.
The main serious objection throughout is that we should have a judicial role in all this. Lord Colville has been much invoked. I pay tribute to Lord Colville who has been widely accepted as a good and impartial observer, and I take comfort from the fact that he is satisfied with my exercise of the powers.
On the point about judicial intervention, I refer to Lord Colville's 1987 report, which actually considered that matter. It was not his annual report. In paragraph 12.1.6, he makes it quite clear why he believes that the introduction of a judicial function would add nothing to safeguards and would not be practicable. Indeed, in that section of his report he defends the adviser system.
It is said that the Act is not successful because it does not result in a sufficient number of charges. I have said that I use its powers only when I am satisfied that charges can be made—but many other things flow from the Act. It is not true that few of those who are detained are then charged. In Great Britain, since the beginning of 1992, 19 people detained under the Act have been charged with serious terrorist-related offences. Indeed, about a quarter of all those detained are charged with serious terrorist offences. Without the powers of the Act, we would be frustrated, in part, in our efforts against terrorism.
I ask the House to renew the order. I make one last plea that we should renew it without a vote, to give some real meaning—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [5 March]:—

The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 202.

Division No. 180]
[7 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arbuthnot, James


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Aspinwall, Jack


Alton, David
Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)


Amess, David
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ancram, Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)





Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fishburn, Dudley


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Forman, Nigel


Beggs, Roy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bellingham, Henry
Forth, Eric


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Body, Sir Richard
Fry, Peter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Booth, Hartley
Gallie, Phil


Boswell, Tim
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowden, Andrew
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Bowis, John
Garnier, Edward


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gill, Christopher


Brandreth, Gyles
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair



Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, John


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Grylls, Sir Michael


Burns, Simon
Hague, William


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Butler, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butterfill, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hannam, Sir John


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Carttiss, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Cash, William


Hayes, Jerry


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Heald, Oliver


Churchill, Mr
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward



Clappison, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hendry, Charles


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael



Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coe, Sebastian
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Colvin, Michael
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Conway, Derek
Horam, John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Cormack, Patrick
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Couchman, James
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)



Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunter, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jenkin, Bernard


Devlin, Tim
Jessel, Toby


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dunn, Bob
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James


Eggar, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knapman, Roger


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evennett, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Faber, David
Knox, David


Fabricant, Michael
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui






Lang, Rt Hon lan
Sackville, Tom


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Legg, Barry
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Leigh, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lightbown, David
Shersby, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lord, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Luff, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


Lynne, Ms Liz
Speed, Sir Keith


McCrea, Rev William
Spencer, Sir Derek


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Maclean, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spink, Dr Robert


Madel, David
Spring, Richard


Maitland, Lady Olga
Sproat, Iain


Major, Rt Hon John
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Malone, Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mans, Keith


Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stephen, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Stern, Michael



Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stewart, Allan


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Streeter, Gary


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sumberg, David


Mates, Michael
Sykes, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Milligan, Stephen
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain
Thomason, Roy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moate, Sir Roger
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D.(Bexl'yh'th)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trimble, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tyler, Paul


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Viggers, Peter


Norris, Steve
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Ottaway, Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Page, Richard
Waller, Gary


Paice, James
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wells, Bowen


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Whittingdale, John



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Redwood, John
Wilkinson, John


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Willetts, David


Richards, Rod
Wilshire, David


Riddick, Graham
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f''ld)


Robathan, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wood, Timothy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. Andrew MacKay


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hall, Mike


Adams, Mrs Irene
Hardy, Peter


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Allen, Graham
Henderson, Doug


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hendron, Dr Joe


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Heppell, John


Austin-Walker, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Hood, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoyle, Doug


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Benton, Joe
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Hutton, John


Blair, Tony
Illsley, Eric


Blunkett, David
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Boateng, Paul
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Boyes, Roland
Jamieson, David


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Janner, Greville


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Burden, Richard
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mön)


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Caborn, Richard
Jowell, Tessa


Callaghan, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Keen, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Canavan, Dennis
Khabra, Piara S.


Cann, Jamie
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Leighton, Ron


Clapham, Michael
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Litherland, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Livingstone, Ken


Cohen, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Connarty, Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAllion, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAvoy, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
McCartney, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Macdonald, Calum


Corston, Ms Jean
McFall, John




Cousins, Jim
McKelvey, William


Cox, Tom
Mackinlay, Andrew


Cryer, Bob

McLeish, Henry


Darling, Alistair
McMaster, Gordon


Davidson, Ian
McNamara, Kevin


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McWilliam, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Madden, Max


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Mallon, Seamus


Denham, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Donohoe, Brian H.
Meacher, Michael



Dowd, Jim
Meale, Alan


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michael, Alun


Enright, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Etherington, Bill
Milburn, Alan


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)



Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Galloway, George
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gapes, Mike
Mudie, George


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gordon, Mildred
O'Hara, Edward


Graham, Thomas
Parry, Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pickthall, Colin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L.


Gunnell, John
Pope, Greg


Hain, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)






Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Spearing, Nigel


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Prescott, John
Steinberg, Gerry


Primarolo, Dawn
Stott, Roger


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Raynsford, Nick
Turner, Dennis


Redmond, Martin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walley, Joan



Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wareing, Robert N


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Watson, Mike


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Andrew


Rooney, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ruddock, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wolfson, Mark


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Short, Clare
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Simpson, Alan



Skinner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Mr. John Spellar and


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.


Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS)

As amended (in the Standing Committee).

To be considered tomorrow.

Rating and Valuation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick ]

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 58.

Division No. 181]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Aitken, Jonathan
Colvin, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Alton, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ancram, Michael
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Arnold. Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Ashby, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Devlin, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bates, Michael
Dover, Den


Beggs, Roy
Duncan, Alan


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Bob


Bendall, Vivian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Beresford, Sir Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Elletson, Harold


Body, Sir Richard
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowden, Andrew
Evennett, David


Bowis, John
Faber, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fabricant, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Fishburn, Dudley


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forman, Nigel


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)



Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Budgen, Nicholas
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butcher, John
Fry, Peter


Butler, Peter
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gallie, Phil


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Garnier, Edward


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gill, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carttiss, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Cash, William
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorst, John


Churchill, Mr
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Clappison, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)






Hague, William
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Milligan, Stephen


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Sir Roger


Hannam, Sir John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James



Hargreaves, Andrew
Monro, Sir Hector


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Harvey, Nick
Needham, Richard


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heald, Oliver
Norris, Steve


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Page, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pickles, Eric


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunter, Andrew
Redwood, John


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Jack, Michael
Richards, Rod


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Key, Robert
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Leigh, Edward
Spink, Dr Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spring, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sproat, Iain


Lidington, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lightbown, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gary


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sumberg, David


McCrea, Rev William
Sykes, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thomason, Roy



Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Malone, Gerald
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mans, Keith
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tredinnick, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trend, Michael


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Merchant, Piers
Tyler, Paul





Viggers, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Walden, George
Willetts, David


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waller, Gary
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Wood, Timothy


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John


Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Sydney Chapman and


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Robert Hughes.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hutton, John


Allen, Graham
Jamieson, David


Austin-Walker, John
Janner, Greville


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lewis, Terry


Byers, Stephen
Loyden, Eddie


Callaghan, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, David (Shettleston)



Cann, Jamie
Martlew, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Meale, Alan


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Milburn, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morgan, Rhodri


Corston, Ms Jean

Morley, Elliot


Davidson, Ian
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Rooney, Terry


Denham, John
Simpson, Alan


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Donohoe, Brian H.
Spearing, Nigel


Enright, Derek
Spellar, John


Flynn, Paul
Turner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wigley, Dafydd


Godsiff, Roger
Winnick, David


Gordon, Mildred
Wise, Audrey


Graham, Thomas
Wray, Jimmy


Henderson, Doug



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Hoyle, Doug
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 4 to 19.

Hon. Members: Object.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

The House divided:Ayes 249, Noes 49.

Division No. 182]
[7.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Alexander, Richard
Beggs, Roy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Alton, David
Bellingham, Henry


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Booth, Hartley


Aspinwall, Jack
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bowis, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes






Brandreth, Gyles
Hayes, Jerry


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Bright, Graham
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hendry, Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Butcher, John
Horam, John


Butler, Peter
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunter, Andrew


Carttiss, Michael
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clappison, James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Conway, Derek
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Rt Hon Tom


Cran, James
Kirkwood, Archy


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knapman, Roger


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Day, Stephen
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Legg, Barry


Dorrell, Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dover, Den
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Elletson, Harold
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
Madel, David


Faber, David
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fabricant, Michael
Malone, Gerald


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mans, Keith


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marlow, Tony


Fishburn, Dudley
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Forman, Nigel
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forth, Eric
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fry, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Gallie, Phil
Milligan, Stephen


Gardiner, Sir George
Moate, Sir Roger


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Garnier, Edward
Monro, Sir Hector


Gill, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Needham, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gorst, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hague, William
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Irvine


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hanley, Jeremy
Pawsey, James


Hannam, Sir John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Pickles, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Alan
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Rathbone, Tim




Hawksley, Warren
Redwood, John





Richards, Rod
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Riddick, Graham
Thomason, Roy


Robathan, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thurnham, Peter


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tracey, Richard


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tredinnick, David


Sackville, Tom
Trend, Michael


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waterson, Nigel


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Spink, Dr Robert
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Sproat, Iain
Wigley, Dafydd


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Willetts, David


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wilshire, David


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stephen, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stewart, Allan
Wood, Timothy


Streeter, Gary
Yeo, Tim


Sykes, John



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes and


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



NOES


Allen, Graham
Loyden, Eddie


Austin-Walker, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry
McCartney, Ian



Callaghan, Jim
McMaster, Gordon


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Madden, Max


Canavan, Dennis
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cann, Jamie
Martlew, Eric


Chisholm, Malcolm
Meale, Alan


Cohen, Harry
Milburn, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Davidson, Ian
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Redmond, Martin


Dixon, Don
Rooney, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Simpson, Alan


Enright, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spellar. John


Gordon, Mildred
Steinberg, Gerry


Graham, Thomas
Winnick, David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wise, Audrey


Hinchliffe, David
Wray, Jimmy


Hood, Jimmy



Janner, Greville
Tellers for the Noes:


Jowell, Tessa
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) >(Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

The House Proceeded to a Division—

The Tellers having come to the Table—

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. As I understand it, the doors were locked in the middle of the vote, Which is not


correct procedure. As soon as I found out that that had happened, I reported to you that I was not satisfied that the vote had been carried out in the correct manner.
I understand that, during that period, some hon. Members went through the doors. I realise that, in your view, it was not unfortunate that the doors were locked for only a short period, but I am sure that you will accept that it is unprecedented for the doors to be locked during the eight minutes that are made available for hon. Members to vote. I can only suggest that the vote be taken again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that hon. Members went into the Lobbies without being counted. I have to order another Division.

The House having divided: Ayes 181, Noes 43.

Division No. 183]
[at 7.47 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Gale, Roger


Aitken, Jonathan
Gallie, Phil


Alton, David
Gardiner, Sir George


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Arbuthnot, James
Garnier, Edward


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Aspinwall, Jack
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gorst, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Beggs, Roy
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bellingham, Henry
Hague, William


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hanley, Jeremy


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Harris, David


Bowis, John
Harvey, Nick


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Haselhurst, Alan


Brandreth, Gyles
Hawksley, Warren


Brazier, Julian
Heald, Oliver


Bright, Graham
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hendry, Charles


Butcher, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Butler, Peter


Horam, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Cash, William
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clappison, James
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Coe, Sebastian
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Colvin, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael



Conway, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Key, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cran, James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dover, Den
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Duncan, Alan
Legg, Barry


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lidington, David


Elletson, Harold
Lightbown, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fabricant, Michael
Lynne, Ms Liz


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew


Fishburn, Dudley
Maclean, David


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Freeman, Roger
Malone, Gerald


Fry, Peter
Mans, Keith





Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stephen, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stern, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Streeter, Gary


Milligan, Stephen
Sykes, John


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Moss, Malcolm
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Page, Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Patnick, Irvine
Trend, Michael


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Redwood, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Richards, Rod
Waterson, Nigel


Riddick, Graham
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Whittingdale, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wigley, Dafydd


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Willetts, David


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Speed, Sir Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Tellers for the Ayes:


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David



NOES


Austin-Walker, John
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry
McCartney, Ian


Callaghan, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martlew, Eric


Cann, Jamie
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mullin, Chris


Cohen, Harry
Pickthall, Colin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Davidson, Ian
Redmond, Martin


Dixon, Don
Rooney, Terry


Dowd, Jim
Simpson, Alan


Fatchett, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Flynn, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Gerrard, Neil
Spellar, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Turner, Dennis


Gordon, Mildred
Winnick, David


Graham, Thomas
Wise, Audrey


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Wray, Jimmy


Hinchliffe, David



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Jamieson, David
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c).
That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Patnick.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Phil Gallie: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I point out that these Divisions on non-contentious matters which are of great benefit to the people and councils of Scotland are a dastardly attempt by the Labour party to rob the people of Scotland of cash which they deserve and which there is no reason to stop?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the general public will read Hansard and make their judgment accordingly.

The House having divided: Ayes 180, Noes 33.

Division No. 184]
[7.59 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Aitken, Jonathan
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Hague, William


Alton, David
Hanley, Jeremy


Amess, David
Harris, David



Arbuthnot, James
Harvey, Nick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Haselhurst, Alan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Hawksley, Warren


Aspinwall, Jack
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Austin-Walker, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Barnes, Harry
Hendry, Charles


Beggs, Roy
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Bowis, John
Hunter, Andrew


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Jack, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brazier, Julian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Bright, Graham
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Butcher, John
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Key, Robert


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Kilfedder, Sir James


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kirkwood, Archy


Carrington, Matthew
Knapman, Roger


Carttiss, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Cash, William
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Chapman, Sydney
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Clappison, James
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Legg, Barry


Coe, Sebastian
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Colvin, Michael
Lewis, Terry


Conway, Derek
Lidington, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Loyden, Eddie



Cran, James
Luff, Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Devlin, Tim
Maitland, Lady Olga


Dixon, Don
Malone, Gerald


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Marlow, Tony


Duncan, Alan
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)



Duncan-Smith, Iain
Merchant, Piers


Dykes, Hugh
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Elletson, Harold
Milligan, Stephen


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evennett, David
Moate, Sir Roger


Faber, David
Moss, Malcolm


Fabricant, Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fatchett, Derek
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy

Nicholls, Patrick


Fishburn, Dudley
Page, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Patnick, Irvine


Freeman, Roger
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Pickles, Eric


Gallic, Phil
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gardiner, Sir George
Redwood, John


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Richards, Rod


Garnier, Edward
Riddick, Graham


Gill, Christopher
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gorst, John
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Rooney, Terry





Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Trend, Michael


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Viggers, Peter


Speed, Sir Keith
Walden, George


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spink, Dr Robert
Waterson, Nigel


Sproat, Iain
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Whittingdale, John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Stephen, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Stern, Michael
Willetts, David


Stewart, Allan
Wilshire, David


Streeter, Gary
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)



Sykes, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Thomason, Roy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


NOES


Bayley, Hugh
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Callaghan, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Cann, Jamie
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Pickthall, Colin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Cohen, Harry
Prescott, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Redmond, Martin


Davidson, Ian
Simpson, Alan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Skinner, Dennis


Dowd, Jim
Spearing, Nigel


Flynn, Paul
Spellar, John


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gordon, Mildred
Wise, Audrey


Graham, Thomas
Wray, Jimmy


Griffiths. Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Hinchliffe, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.


McAvoy, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),

That the draft Mercury Communications Ltd. (Rateable Values)(Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 41.

Division No. 185]
[8.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cash, William


Alton, David
Chapman, Sydney


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Arbuthnot, James
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Coe, Sebastian


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek




Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beggs, Roy
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Devlin, Tim


Bowis, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandreth, Gyles
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Bright, Graham
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brown, M. (Brigg &Cl'thorpes)
Elletson, Harold


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Butcher, John
Faber, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fabricant, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fenner, Dame Peggy






Fishburn, Dudley
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Milligan, Stephen


Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gale, Roger
Moate, Sir Roger



Gallie, Phil
Morley, Elliot


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Moss, Malcolm


Garnier, Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholls, Patrick


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pawsey, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Pickles, Eric


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hague, William
Redwood, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Richards, Rod


Harris, David
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Harvey, Nick
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Haselhurst, Alan
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hawksley, Warren
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heald, Oliver
Shaw, David (Dover)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Sims, Roger


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hendry, Charles
Spencer, Sir Derek


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Spink, Dr Robert


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sproat, Iain


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Steen, Anthony


Hunter, Andrew
Stephen, Michael


Jack, Michael
Stern, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stewart, Allan


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Streeter, Gary


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Sykes, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Thomason, Roy


Kilfedder, Sir James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Thurnham, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Trend, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tyler, Paul


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Viggers, Peter


Legg, Barry
Walden, George


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Waller, Gary


Lidington, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lightbown, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Luff, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wigley, Dafydd


Lynne, Ms Liz
Wi Herts, David


Maclean, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Wood, Timothy


Malone, Gerald



Mans, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Marlow, Tony
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Merchant, Piers
Mr. Andrew MacKay.


NOES


Barnes, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Bayley, Hugh
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Cann, Jamie
Loyden, Eddie


Chisholm, Malcolm
McAvoy, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Cohen, Harry
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martlew, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Davidson, Ian
Pickthall, Colin


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Dixon, Don
Redmond, Martin


Dowd, Jim
Rooney, Terry




Fatchett, Derek
Simpson, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spellar, John


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)





Winnick, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. Dennis Skinner and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Terry Lewis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 42.

Division No. 186]
[8.20 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Harvey, Nick


Aitken, Jonathan
Hawksley, Warren


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Heald, Oliver


Alton, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Amess, David
Hendry, Charles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Aspinwall, Jack
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hunter, Andrew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Jack, Michael


Beggs, Roy
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)



Beresford, Sir Paul
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bowis, John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Brandreth, Gyles
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Brazier, Julian
Kilfedder, Sir James


Bright, Graham
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Knapman, Roger


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Butcher, John
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Legg, Barry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Carrington, Matthew
Lidington, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lightbown, David


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Luff, Peter


Clappison, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Coe, Sebastian
MacKay, Andrew


Colvin, Michael
Maclean, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Malone, Gerald


Cran, James
Marlow, Tony


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Merchant, Piers


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Devlin, Tim
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Moate, Sir Roger


Dover, Den
Neubert, Sir Michael


Duncan, Alan
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Nicholls, Patrick


Elletson, Harold
Page, Richard


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Pawsey, James


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fishburn, Dudley
Redwood, John


Freeman, Roger
Richards, Rod


Fry, Peter
Riddick, Graham


Gale, Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gallie, Phil
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Garnier, Edward
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gill, Christopher
Sims, Roger


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gorst, John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Spink, Dr Robert


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Sproat, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hague, William
Steen, Anthony


Hanley, Jeremy
Stephen, Michael


Harris, David
Stern, Michael






Stewart, Allan
Waller, Gary


Streeter, Gary
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomason, Roy
Wigley, Dafydd


Thurnham, Peter
Willetts, David


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Trend, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Twinn, Dr Ian



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walden, George
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


NOES


Barnes, Harry
Hinchliffe, David


Bayley, Hugh
Hood, Jimmy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Callaghan, Jim
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAvoy, Thomas


Cann, Jamie
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Meale, Alan


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Mitchell, Austin (Gf Grimsby)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Cohen, Harry
Pickthall, Colin


Corbyn, Jeremy
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Davidson, Ian
Rogers, Allan


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Rooney, Terry


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Dowd, Jim
Spellar, John


Fatchett, Derek
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Flynn, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wray, Jimmy


Gordon, Mildred



Graham, Thomas
Tellers for the Noes:


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Hall, Mike
Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
That the draft Oil Related and Petrochemical Plants (Rateable Value (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for English Labour Members to seek to defeat this order, thus ensuring that business rates in the oil industry in my constituency would be raised by 85 per cent.?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is open to any hon. Member to object to any motion.

Later—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have asked the Clerk to inquire what the delay is in both Lobbies. If an hon. Member is purposely sitting there, it is verging on contempt of the House.

The House divided: Ayes 147, Noes 41.

Division No. 187]
[8.36 pm


AYES



Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bayley, Hugh


Aitken, Jonathan
Beggs, Roy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bennett, Andrew F.


Alton, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brandreth, Gyles


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brazier, Julian





Bright, Graham
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Lidington, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Lightbown, David


Butcher, John
Lord, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Luff, Peter


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacKay, Andrew


Carrington, Matthew
Maclean, David


Carttiss, Michael
Maitland, Lady Olga


Cash, William
Malone, Gerald


Chapman, Sydney
Marlow, Tony


Clappison, James
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cran, James
Moate, Sir Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Devlin, Tim
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Page, Richard


Dover, Den
Patnick, Irvine


Duncan, Alan
Pawsey, James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric


Dunn, Bob
Porter, David (Waveney)


Elletson, Harold
Purchase, Ken


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Redwood, John


Fabricant, Michael
Richards, Rod


Fatchett, Derek
Riddick, Graham


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fishburn, Dudley
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Freeman, Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gale, Roger
Rooney, Terry


Gallie, Phil
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Gardiner, Sir George
Shaw, David (Dover)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Sims, Roger


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Spencer, Sir Derek


Gorst, John
Spink, Dr Robert


Graham, Thomas
Sproat, Iain


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Steen, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Stephen, Michael


Hague, William
Stern, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Stewart, Allan


Harris, David
Sykes, John


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hawksley, Warren
Thomason, Roy


Heald, Oliver
Thurnham, Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Trend, Michael


Hood, Jimmy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Walden, George


Jack, Michael
Waller, Gary


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Whittingdale, John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Widdecombe, Ann


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Wigley, Dafydd


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Willetts, David


Kilfedder, Sir James
Wood, Timothy


Kirkwood, Archy
Wray, Jimmy


Knapman, Roger



Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Legg, Barry



NOES


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Denham, John


Callaghan, Jim
Dixon, Don


Cann, Jamie
Dowd, Jim


Chisholm, Malcolm
Flynn, Paul


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gordon, Mildred


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Corbyn, Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cryer, Bob
Gunnell, John


Davidson, Ian
Hinchliffe, David






Hood, Jimmy
Rogers, Allan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Spearing, Nigel


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Spellar, John


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Turner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Winnick, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Wray, Jimmy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. Terry Lewis and


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Redmond. Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next motion, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that any obstruction of the Division Lobby is not acceptable to the Chair.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric pic. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 37.

Division No. 189]
[9.10 pm


AYES



Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Bob Cryer and



Mr. Harry Barnes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alton, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Bayley, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Beggs, Roy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.





Bennett, Andrew F.
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Legg, Barry


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Brandreth, Gyles
Lewis, Terry


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Bright, Graham
Lightbown, David


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Lord, Michael


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Loyden, Eddie


Burt, Alistair
Luff, Peter


Butcher, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Callaghan, Jim
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
MacKay, Andrew


Cann, Jamie
Maclean, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Malone, Gerald


Carrington, Matthew
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Carttiss, Michael
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Cash, William
Meale, Alan


Clappison, James
Merchant, Piers


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Cran, James
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Davidson, Ian
Moss, Malcolm


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Mullin, Chris


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Devlin, Tim
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Dixon, Don
Nicholls, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Page, Richard


Dover, Den
Parry, Robert


Duncan, Alan
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Pawsey, James


Dunn, Bob
Pike, Peter L.


Elletson, Harold
Porter, David (Waveney)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Redwood, John


Fabricant, Michael
Richards, Rod


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Riddick, Graham


Fishburn, Dudley
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Flynn, Paul
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Gale, Roger
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Gallie, Phil
Rooney, Terry


Gardiner, Sir George
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Gill, Christopher
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shaw, David (Dover)


Graham, Thomas
Sims, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Skinner, Dennis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Gunnell, John
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hague, William
Spink, Dr Robert


Hanley, Jeremy
Sproat, Iain


Harris, David
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Harvey, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Stephen, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Stern, Michael


Heald, Oliver
Stewart, Allan


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Streeter, Gary


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Sykes, John


Hood, Jimmy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Thomason, Roy


Hunter, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Illsley, Eric
Trend, Michael


Jack, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tyler, Paul


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Viggers, Peter


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Walden, George


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Waller, Gary


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Whittingdale, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Widdecombe, Ann


Knapman, Roger
Wigley, Dafydd


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Willetts, David






Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Sydney Chapman and



Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next motion, may I say that I propose to invoke Standing Order No. 39. For those hon. Members who are not familiar with the Standing Order, after the lapse of two minutes on each motion I shall call the Ayes to stand and then to sit down and then the Noes to stand and then to sit down. I shall then make a judgment as to whether there is a clear majority one way or the other.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you might reconsider your ruling. As I understand it, that procedure has normally been used in the middle of a Bill. I cannot recall an occasion when it has been used on statutory instruments. The history of statutory instruments is of considerable importance as they all used to be taken on the Floor of the House. Only with the permission of the House are they referred to a Committee upstairs on the basis that, when they return, it will be possible for the House to express a clear view; in other words, for all hon. Members to record precisely their vote.
May I suggest that if you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Government wish to proceed along this line, it is possible that my hon. Friends will decide that they do not want any orders to go upstairs to Committee. As I am sure you will appreciate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The decision is a matter entirely for the Chair. I have not consulted anyone. It is my view that it is now appropriate to invoke the Standing Order.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The wording of Standing Order No. 39 is:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed".
You have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you propose to exercise your discretion. However, surely there is a responsibility upon you to tell the House why you believe a Division is being unnecessarily claimed. I have a case to put to you that—[Interruption.] I am quoting from Standing Order No. 39, which says:
if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed
I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that these Divisions are being necessarily claimed. Some of us have voted in different Lobbies on different orders.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that I voted against the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I accept the hon. Gentleman's word. However, I made it clear that my decision would be made after a lapse of two minutes; I did not say what that decision would be. I said that if, in my opinion, it was necessary to invoke Standing Order No. 39, I would do so.

Mr. Bob Cryer: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am the Chairman of both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. We have made the complaint that in 1992 the Government produced more statutory instruments than have ever before been produced in the history of Parliament. It would be a very serious departure from parliamentary scrutiny if the torrent of statutory instruments produced by the Government were not then subject to a vote on the Floor of the House. That would mean that the legislative sausage machine that the Government are using would become even worse.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already made it clear that the House will not be denied a vote; the House will get its vote.
Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—

The House divided: Aves 0. Noes 170.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you reconsider yet again your decision to invoke Standing Order No. 39? As I recall, the last time that that was invoked was in 1979— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be heard.

Mr. Meale: On that occasion, 13 votes had already taken place. Surely we have not yet reached that stage in these proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I entered the House considerably earlier than 1979; and if the hon. Gentleman looks back he will find other precedents. In any case, we have already had 10 Divisions.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it your intention to invoke standing order No. 39 in respect of motion No. 19, which concerns the controversial issue of the common organisation of the market in potatoes, because I am keen to register a vote agin it?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One at a time.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to pursue the question of your ruling, but I would like you to explain how you will implement your ruling, to protect the rights—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite happy to do that when the time comes.

Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the few occasions that Standing Order No. 39 has been invoked since 1970—although that has happened recently—I have been present. The occupant of the Chair invoked the Standing Order only when there were seven, 10 or a dozen hon. Members in the Chamber. On no occasion were 30 or 40 hon. Members voting—not while I have been here. On the last occasion that I recall, when we were up most of the night, only a handful of hon. Members were voting. It was relatively easy for the occupant of the Chair to see the numbers involved clearly. To do it on the basis of—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Gentleman's memory is not perhaps as good as it used to be. Mr. Harry Barnes.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. In the 1986–87 Session, voting in the last three Divisions before the Standing Order was invoked was 167 to 32, 166 to 31, and 166 to 31.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the same scale—

Mr. Skinner: You are wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Barnes.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to contain themselves. Points of order from any part the House are important.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your further ruling in respect of the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) in respect of motion No. 19. Initially, that motion was considered by European Standing Committee A and, in a Division, the voting was four votes to two.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already told the House that I will consider each motion on its merits. We have reached motion No. 11; we are nowhere near motion No. 19.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you would consider each order on its merits. As an individual Member of Parliament, I ask you to provide a procedure whereby my name is recorded as being in favour of the next order. "Erskine May" states:
Neither names nor numbers of a minority are now announced, though the numbers appear in the Journal.
That would be insufficient to indicate that I voted in favour of the order about the nuclear power industry. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to allow a Division so that Hansard can show that I voted in favour of the valuation order as it relates to the Scottish nuclear industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hear the hon. Gentleman's appeal, but I regret to say that I cannot meet it.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask you to consider how to ensure that there is sufficient time for hon. Members to get into the Chamber to express their views—as is their right—and that thal is made clear on the Annunciator? Each order deals with a different subject, and an hon. Member may well decide not to vote on, for instance, the Scottish rating and valuation motions but to vote on the social security motions, or the motion relating to potatoes. You have a duty to protect the rights of Back Benchers, who rely on the Annunciator to know what is going on in the Chamber.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. However, 15 minutes have elapsed since I announced the position, and I assume that most—indeed, all—hon. Members now know what is going on.
I shall now put the Question on motion No. 11. The Question is—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It really—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this a new point of order?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, it is not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall put the Question on motion No. 11.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot]
As many as are of that opinion say Aye—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. In my opinion, the Division has been called unnecessarily. I therefore call on hon. Members supporting the motion to rise in their places. Will those against the motion do the same?

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no point of order for me.

Mr. Bennett: Hon. Members are still coming in.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will those who are voting No please stand? They have to be counted. Will hon. Members please stand still?

Mr. Meale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A major difficulty has occurred because of your ruling on this Division. We on this side of the House clearly heard the words from your lips, "Clear the Lobbies." That being the case, hon. Members on this side of the House must be allowed to vote through the Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I gave adequate warning. The difficulty is that the House is not used to this procedure.

Mr. Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should like you to reconsider your ruling. The reason is that, when you uttered the words, "Clear the Lobbies", hon. Members left the Chamber and went into the Lobby, following which the Division bells sounded. Those hon. Members remained in the Lobby and missed the vote. Some of them went to other parts of the House. We ask for a further ruling.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members make their own decisions. I made very clear what procedure I was to invoke. That procedure is laid down in the Standing Orders of the House.

Mr. Don Dixon: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I have finished one ruling I shall be happy to take another point of order. [Interruption.] Order. Let me announce the result of that Division. In my opinion, the Ayes have it.

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On that occasion, you definitely said, "Clear the Lobbies." The Division bells rang and it went on the Annunciator. Then my hon. Friends went into the Lobby. May I ask you how many voted Aye? No one took any account of those who stood in favour of the motion, although the Clerks counted those who voted against it. How can you have a proper Division when there are no Tellers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Clerk's responsibility is to count the minority, which he did. On this occasion it was the Noes. It may be the Ayes on a future occasion. The Clerk undertook that responsibility and reported the result to me. [Interruption.] Order. In my judgment, the Noes

were so far below the Ayes that the motion was accepted. [Interruption.] I do not need to count. It was quite clear that there was a majority in favour of that motion.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that all of us in the Chamber, particularly those of us who have held chairs in various capacities, understand the difficulties that you face today—as well as the difficulties that some hon. Members might face in the next three days, difficulties that could have been relieved. Am I right in thinking that the procedure under the Standing Order is that the request to stand takes place on the second call after two minutes? Will you please confirm that? May I suggest that the difficulties that we have just experienced were caused by the fact that many of my hon. Friends—and nearly myself —did not understand that the moment to stand, if there was to be standing, was then and not earlier?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I explained that I proposed to invoke Standing Order No. 39. I spelt out the implications, and the record will show that I did. The fact that hon. Members are perhaps not aware of how Standing Order No. 39 works is not a matter for the Chair. I ask hon. Members to pay proper attention to announcements from the Chair.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the sake of clarification, and to ensure that there is no further confusion or misunderstanding, Standing Order No. 39, for those who —[Interruption.] Order. Will the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) do me the courtesy of listening? Standing Order No. 39 states:
Mr. Speaker or the chairman may, after the lapse of two minutes, if in his opinion the division is unnecessarily claimed, take the vote of the House, or committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House or committee, or name tellers for a division.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for clarification? I was working in my office when the Division bells rang. The Annunciator clearly stated that there was a Division in the House, and the bells were ringing for everyone to hear. There was no way that any hon. Members working in their offices could know that they had to be in the House immediately to stand up at the appropriate time.
That meant that hon. Members who were working in their offices when the Division was called thought that they had the usual eight minutes in which to come to the Chamber. I seek your guidance on how hon. Members in that situation were supposed to know that the Division was being called on the Floor of the House in an unusual way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady will be aware that I gave full warning 15 minutes before calling the Division.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. How can I give a proper answer to the hon. Lady if other hon. Members rise?
I gave full warning 15 minutes prior to calling the Division what the procedure would be and when I would invoke it. Hon. Members are required to keep abreast of


what is happening here. They must use their judgment about whether to leave the Chamber to work. My judgment is to give due warning, which I did to the best of my ability.

Mr. Meale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I crave your indulgence for a second or two? Is it part of the procedure in such cases, when Standing Order No. 39 is invoked, to say, "Clear the Lobbies" and to call a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, it is. If I say, "Clear the Lobbies", that is part of the required procedure. I must follow the procedure of the House as laid down by the Standing Orders. I have no room for discretion in that matter. My discretion concerns whether I announce the Tellers.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek clarification on how you weighed the votes for the Division. I think that the responsibility of the Chair in these circumstances is to protect the minority from those who try to shout us down. The point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is this: those of us who voted No were asked to stand in our positions here. You then said that you thought that the Noes were a minority. May I say how impressed I am by your clairvoyance and perception, because nobody stood on the other side. How do you know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did ask the Ayes—those who supported the motion—to stand, and all the hon. Members whom I can see on the Government side of the Chamber stood, and some Opposition Members, too. Then I called the Noes. After a delay, the Noes stood and were counted by the Clerk—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"]. It was clear where the majority lay. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Thirty-four.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Scottish Power plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hat?"] On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the hat?"' On a point of—[HON. MEMBERS: "This is during a Division."] I rose on a point of order before the Division was called—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret to say that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's point of order before I called the motion—[Interruption.]—but I shall take the point of order now, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise it and it follows the procedure of the House. The Question has been put, so I should be grateful if the hon. Member would follow the procedures of the House and wear—[Interruption.]

Mr. Dixon: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am happy to give guidance if the hon. Gentleman will follow the procedure of the House.

Mr. Eric Illsley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Procedure Committee recently recommended that, when there was an alteration during a Division—[HON. MEMBERS: "What? An altercation?"]—
when there was an alteration to procedure during a Division, a message should be shown on the Annunciator. I am referring to what happens when a Division is extended.
In those circumstances, it was recommended that some message should be displayed on the Annunciator to show hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) who are coming to the Chamber from outside the precincts of the Palace of Westminster that they have extra time in which to vote. My suggestion is that perhaps it would be better for the House to be suspended for sufficient time to allow for hon. Members in and about the Palace of Westminster—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that procedure is primarily for security alerts and other events of that nature.
Motion No. 12. As many as are of the opinion say Aye. to the contrary No. Clear the Lobbies.

Mr. Meale: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the benefit of hon. Members in the Chamber, will you tell us: is this a Division? Are Members going into the Division Lobbies or not?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: "Clear the Lobbies" means clear the Lobbies of strangers. Hon. Members have had it explained to them several times that, if they wish to take part in the Division—which is entirely voluntary—they should remain in their places. After two minutes, if I believe it appropriate, I shall either call the Tellers, in which case there will be a normal Division, or I shall ask Members to rise in their places.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, having said that it appeared to him that the Division had been unnecessarily claimed, accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, forty-two Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Dixon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you explain the procedure under Standing Order No. 39 because there seems to be a lot of confusion, not among Opposition Members, but among Conservative Members? How will you tell whether there is a consistent vote if the vote for the Noes is not declared at the end of each vote? May we be given the number of those voting against at the end of each vote, and can that be put on the Annunciator so that people outside know that there is a Division and how many are voting against the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House is entitled to know that 42 hon. Members voted against the motion.

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for clarification. I am sure that it would be helpful if the Clerks stood to count hon. Members. They remain seated, so they must have difficulty in counting. I understand that to challenge the


count made by the Clerks would be to challenge your decision, Mr. Deputy Speaker and obviously I do not want to do that. However, while the Clerks remain seated, there is a possibility that they will miscount.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House has experienced Clerks, and I think that we can rely on their ability to count.

Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I shall put my point of order if hon. Members stop baying. It is difficult for folk like me who have a hearing aid to hear everything in the Chamber when there is such noise. Hon. Members who, like myself, suffer from that disability will be helped by other hon. Members keeping quiet when they raise a point of order. I was moving so fast that my wife could not have counted me. How you could you count me, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5)(Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Where is the hat?

Mr. Skinner: He does not need a hat.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Where is the proper hat?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will you confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House insists on hats. There is one at either end of the Chamber.

Mr. Skinner: His head has only got to be covered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hat must be on.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where does it say that 1 must wear a hat? Which page?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wear a hat.

Mr. Skinner: He does not have to.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call upon those supporting the motion to rise in their places. I call upon those opposing the motion to rise in their places.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down.
Question agreed to.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understood the rules, an hon. Member has to be covered. I understood that the recommendation from the Select Committee on Procedure was to provide the House with two hats but, because many hon. Members felt that it was not dignified to wear a hat like that, an hon. Member was entitled simply to have his head covered. I understand that it was custom and practice for an hon. Member to put an Order Paper on his head. If you can direct us to where it says that an hon. Member has to wear one of the hats as opposed to covering his head, I shall be grateful.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There seems to be great concern in the Chamber about the way in which proceedings are developing. Would it be appropriate for Madam Speaker to be asked to come to the Chamber so that we might have proper rulings on these matters?

Mr. Redmond: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that Madam Speaker's predecessor allowed the practice of an hon. Member covering his head with an Order Paper. Has there been a change of practice?

Mr. Michael Connarty: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point of order is much more simple. In the year that I have been in the House, I have not heard three consecutive points of order go unanswered. It seems strange that we have a new procedure in the House. I have heard Madam Speaker say that she will answer one point of order before another is taken. We now have three points of order outstanding without an answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the Select Committee on Procedure said that a hat should be worn. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was provided with a hat, courtesy to the Chair suggests that he should have worn it.

Council Tax Benefit

Motion made, and Questions put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Council Tax Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Meale: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have we had the 10 o'clock motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no 10 o'clock motion tonight.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, thirty-five Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Council Tax Benefit (Permitted Total) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 11th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Meale: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When you called the previous vote, I do not know whether it was because of the noise from the other side of the Chamber, but several of my colleagues and I certainly did not hear the motion on which we were voting. Therefore, it seems that many hon. Members have been through a voting procedure on at least three occasions when they did not know the order on which they were voting. I would appreciate your guidance on where we are at present and whether the previous three 'votes were in order because of the lack of a number.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now on motion No. 15. I announced the previous motions very clearly.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. For the previous two votes, I heard no announcement of the numbers voting. On one vote, I noticed two hon. Members—the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) and the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)—voting both Aye and No. Did the Clerks count the No votes on both sides of the Chamber? You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could clarify the matter by giving the numbers voting Aye and those voting No on the previous two motions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members will know that if they vote Aye and No on both sides, they are counted on both sides.

Mr. Connarty: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that hon. Members are now becoming disturbed by the Deputy Speaker's authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) asked whether Madam Speaker could be called to the House as we have now reached the stage when it is clear that some hon. Members believe that the procedures of the House are being manipulated—and the Clerks are overpaid—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask those supporting motion No. 15 to rise in their places. Is the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is walking, voting Aye? It does not matter whether he is voting in the Gangway; it applies to anywhere in the House.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it, two Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.
Question agreed to.

Redundancy Payments (Local Government)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a comparatively new Member who has been in the House of Commons for six years, may I say that I have recently spent weeks on end in the Standing Committee on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill where we discussed the abolition of the wages councils. On that occasion, the Government called for secret ballots and the right to have recorded votes, but here tonight we have seen Government Members standing up to vote. Is that democracy, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Will you please rule on that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am duty bound to operate by the proposals of the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Fatchett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to take you back to your ruling on the point of order during a Division when an hon. Member was told to wear a hat. The penultimate paragraph of page 366 of "Erskine May" states:
Only when a question of order arises during a division may a Member speak seated and covered.
My hon. Friend did exactly that. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might argue that there has been a change of practice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There have been a number of points of order. To which hon. Member and to which point of order is the hon. Gentleman referring?

Mr. Fatchett: I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the matter. I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
I should like to refer to the footnotes in "Erskine May". One argument that may have been available to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there has been a change of practice. The footnotes on page 366 refer to parliamentary debates, and it is important to put them on the record. They read:
Part Deb (1883) … c 854; … (1886) … (1904) … (1945–46)".
The footnotes also state:
See also 2nd Report from the Sessional Committee on Procedure, … (1976–77),".
Some long-serving Members will recall that there was a debate on this issue in 1979–80 and a further debate in 1983–84. There has been no subsequent debate or reference.

Mr. Speaker: Weatherill always allowed a point of order during a Division when an hon. Member wore a hat or was covered in some other way. I shall refer to personal experience. Under Mr. Speaker Weatherill, I raised a point of order during a Division and I wore a handkerchief, as if I were on the beach at Blackpool. It was knotted in the peculiar seaside way and looked appropriate. Mr. Speaker Weatherill accepted that point of order.
With respect, Mr. Morris—I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; we have spent so much time in Committee

debating Maastricht that you will understand my mistake—the footnotes on page 366 show that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was in order, and it would be appropriate for you to recognise that. We all make mistakes and I think that you have made a mistake on this occasion and should allow my hon. Friend to make his point of order in the appropriate way, the way in which he was behaving. We need clarification.
If we are to protect minorities, the practices of the House should not be changed from the Chair. They should be changed only with the agreement of the House, and there has been no such agreement or debate. My hon. Friends have not been able to contribute. This is an important change in procedure and should not be made unilaterally by the Chair. I contend that you are out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington was in order and should be upheld.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not seeking to change the procedure. I am guided by the Procedures Committee's recommendation in 1977, subsequently endorsed by the House, that the definition of "covered" was wearing a hat. It need not necessarily be an opera hat: it may be a handkerchief. Some of us wear handkerchiefs in that way in the summer in strong sunlight, especially those of us who are a little short of hair. It is clear that an Order paper is not a hat.

Dr. David Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your ruling is important, because—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not make a ruling: I gave the reference on which the ruling was based.

Dr. Clark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Was your reference to the Order Paper a ruling, and are you saying that custom and practice since 1977 has been changed and the understanding is that hon. Members' heads will not be deemed to be covered if they are wearing paper, as has been the custom? To clarify the situation, would it be helpful to suspend the House for a short time so that the matter can be sorted out through the usual channels, because you are making an important ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can envisage a situation where a properly constructed paper hat was appropriate, but not an Order Paper.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attempted to raise a point of order on motion' No. 13, which you decided to ignore and go on to a vote. As a new Member of the House, I have today been to the Library to get my speaking record in the House because people in my constituency may wish to see the contribution that I have made. I wanted to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether I was recorded as voting on motion No. 13. Would I have had the right to vote because I came in when the vote appeared to be taking place? I wish to have recorded for my constituents whether or not I was involved in the vote on motion No. 13, which is very important. Despite the gesticulations of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), I still wish to know whether I was recorded in the vote on motion No. 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows, and I clarify, that under this procedure names are


not recorded. However, the hon. Gentleman is known as an assiduous hon. Member and his constituents will know him as such. They will know that he was here this evening and raised an important point of order.

Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you will reflect on the proceedings in the House in the past hour. I suggest that they do not do the House much credit. However, I suggest that the Opposition have a legitimate right to express their disquiet, and the attempts to curtail the voting tonight shows simply that the usual channels have failed to deal with the problems that have arisen over private Bills.
Will you reflect on the fact that, by using this voting procedure, you have become involved in those arguments and have allowed the procedures of the House not to be shown in their best light? Would it not be a good idea to revert to the normal voting procedures so that we can continue and perhaps during the next vote, in the Division Lobbies, the usual channels can sort out the many problems which have developed over private votes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat what I said at the beginning. I am taking each motion on its merits. I have not decided that every one of the motions will be taken on a rising and sitting basis, and I certainly made a note earlier to consider that.
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Connarty: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to know whether the hat which I am wearing will fit the description of being covered—or must I turn it this way? Must I also put my hand in my jacket? Is this sufficient covering?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my judgment, for this evening, it is.

Mr. Barnes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On Standing Order No. 39, under which the votes are taking place, although I have put my name down as a Teller I am not absolutely sure what it is that we are voting on according to the Standing Order. Are the votes taking place on challenging your decision, or are they on the motions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They are simply on whether the Ayes or the Noes have it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we be serious for a moment? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be heard. I shall finish the Division and then return to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.
So that there is no confusion, I confirm that we are voting on motion No. 16.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Redundancy Payments (Local Government) (Modification) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That that the draft Water Undertakers (Rateable Values) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 40.

Division No. 190]
[10.20 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Hawksley, Warren


Aitken, Jonathan
Heald, Oliver


Alexander, Richard
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Alton, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Amess, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Ancram, Michael
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Arbuthnot, James
Jack, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Kirkwood, Archy



Bendall, Vivian
Knapman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Bowis, John
Legg, Barry


Brandreth, Gyles
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Brazier, Julian
Lidington, David


Bright, Graham
Lord, Michael


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Burt, Alistair
Lynne, Ms Liz


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
MacKay, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Maclean, David


Carrington, Matthew
Malone, Gerald


Carttiss, Michael
Mans, Keith


Cash, William
Marlow, Tony


Chapman, Sydney
Merchant, Piers


Clappison, James
Moate, Sir Roger


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholls, Patrick



Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Page, Richard


Cran, James
Patnick, Irvine


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Pawsey, James


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Redwood, John


Devlin, Tim
Richards, Rod


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Riddick, Graham


Dover, Den
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Duncan, Alan
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Dunn, Bob
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Elletson, Harold
Shaw, David (Dover)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Sims, Roger


Faber, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Fabricant, Michael
Speed, Sir Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Spencer, Sir Derek


Fishburn, Dudley
Spink, Dr Robert


Foster, Don (Bath)
Sproat, Iain


Freeman, Roger
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Gale, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Gallie, Phil
Stephen, Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Stern, Michael


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Stewart, Allan


Gill, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Sykes, John


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Thomason, Roy


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Thurnham, Peter


Hague, William
Trend, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Harris, David
Tyler, Paul


Haselhurst, Alan
Viggers, Peter






Walden, George
Willetts, David


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. David Lightbown and


Whittingdale, John
Mr. Andrew McKay.


Widdecombe, Ann



NOES


Bayley, Hugh
Jamieson, David


Bennett, Andrew F.
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Loyden, Eddie


Cann, Jamie
McAvoy, Thomas


Chisholm, Malcolm
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Cohen, Harry
Parry, Robert


Connarty, Michael
Primarolo, Dawn


Cryer, Bob
Redmond, Martin


Davidson, Ian
Rooney, Terry



Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Fatchett, Derek
Spellar, John


Flynn, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Gerrard, Neil
Winnick, David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Wise, Audrey


Gordon, Mildred
Wray, Jimmy


Graham, Thomas



Gunnell, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Hood, Jimmy
Mr. Andrew Meale and


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Harry Barnes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The confusion among hon. Members earlier about whether they should rise or sit to cast their vote may have arisen because they had forgotten that Standing Order No. 39 was invoked in July 1975 by the Labour Government against my right hon. Friends and myself and various Members present today, including the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member should have said "under a Labour Government".
It might be for the convenience of the House if I try to clarify matters. I now have the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure from the 1976–77 Session, paragraph 5 of which on page 6 says:
Your Committee consider that the requirement to be covered should remain, and that any form of headgear should be acceptable, but that for reasons already stated, such articles as hankerchiefs or Order papers, which are instantly available to all Members, should not be accepted.
The Committee considers that the same rule should apply to lady Members. It recommends that a second piece of headgear should be kept behind the Chair. I hope that hon. Members will accept that that is the reference that has guided me this evening.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you remind the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who I understood was a master of procedure, that he is wrong? A Labour Government did not exercise the procedure; Mr. Speaker did. Perhaps he should know the rule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that I had made that clear.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, clarify the position with regard to wearing the hat? Many of us are deeply embarrassed at having to wear headgear of such a nature. [Interruption.] It is a fair point to make. We believe that it brings ridicule on Parliament and on us

as Members. Therefore, as the proceedings of the House are now televised and transmitted all over the world, will you consider raising the matter with the Chairman of the Procedure Committee with a view to avoiding such embarrassment for Members?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that any Member can raise such a matter with the Procedure Committee. I shall cogitate on whether it is appropriate that I should, but the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his own submission. I hope that that has finished the issue of the hat.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During this evening's discussions and points of order, it has become clear that there are difficulties with the new microphone system. When hon. Members remain seated, as they are required to do during a Division, particularly those on the Front Bench, they are well out of range of the microphones. The new microphones were installed relatively recently, and clearly they are inadequate—particularly in respect of right hon. and hon. Members seated on the Front Benches near yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Also, the microphones are normally switched off until a right hon. or hon. Member is called, when the nearest microphone is switched on. However, there appears to be some delay in that respect. I did not hear, for example, the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) because he was inaudible—not because of the noise in the Chamber but because of the lack of amplification. If this procedure is invoked again, that could lead to myriad points of order by seated right hon. and hon. Members. It might be helpful if the sound engineers could ascertain whether the microphones might be pointed downwards, so that points of order from seated right hon. and hon. Members wearing appropriate headgear might be heard.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Life is full of difficulties, but I will bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the Supervisor of Broadcasting.

Mr. Connarty: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You quoted a definition to the effect that a readily available item would not be considered suitable headgear. You probably saw me labouring away at making this hat, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would placing it behind the Chair be appropriate? Also, I am not someone who naturally wears a bonnet or an opera hat. Could not a decent, well-designed fedora also be placed behind the. Chair?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I quoted the reference, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard tomorrow morning and then decide on the kind of hat that he considers appropriate, within the rules of the House.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to sit in that laconic way on the arm of his Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Right hon. and hon. Members should sit on the Benches.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been sitting here listening quietly to your various


comments. Perhaps I may ask you, in what I hope is a typically polite way, whether you are in a position to reply to my earlier point of order about motion No. 19?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are taking the motions one at a time.

MEDICINES CONTROL AGENCY

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
That the draft Medicines Control Agency Trading Fund Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. MacKay.]
Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees.)

POTATOES

That this House takes note of the Court of Auditors' Report concerning the financial year 1991 together with the institutions' replies (OJ No. C330, Volume 35) and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 25th February 1993 relating to the draft Council Recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge of the General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1991.—[Mr. MacKay.]

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 53.

Division No. 191]
[10.37pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Forman, Nigel


Aitken, Jonathan
Freeman, Roger


Alexander, Richard
Gale, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Gallie, Phil


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Ancram, Michael
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arbuthnot, James
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hague, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hanley, Jeremy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Harris, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hawksley, Warren


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Heald, Oliver


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Brazier, Julian
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hunter, Andrew


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Jack, Michael



Burt, Alistair
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Carttiss, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cash, William
Kilfedder, Sir James


Clappison, James
King, Rt Hon Tom


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Knapman, Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Legg, Barry


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lidington, David


Devlin, Tim
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lord, Michael


Dover, Den
Luff, Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Duncan-Smith, Iain
MacKay, Andrew


Elletson, Harold
Maclean, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Malone, Gerald


Faber, David
Mans, Keith


Fabricant, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Merchant, Piers





Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stern, Michael


Moate, Sir Roger
Stewart, Allan


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thomason, Roy



Page, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trend, Michael


Redwood, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waterson, Nigel


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whittingdale, John


Sims, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Willetts, David


Speed, Sir Keith
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Stephen, Michael



NOES


Alton, David
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Bayley, Hugh
Kirkwood, Archy


Beggs, Roy
Lewis, Terry


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Loyden, Eddie


Bennett, Andrew F.
Lynne, Ms Liz


Callaghan, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Cann, Jamie
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Parry, Robert


Chisholm, Malcolm
Pike, Peter L.


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Prescott, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Primarolo, Dawn


Cohen, Harry
Redmond, Martin


Connarty, Michael
Rooney, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Davidson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Fatchett, Derek
Spellar, John


Flynn, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Tyler, Paul


Gordon, Mildred
Winnick, David


Graham, Thomas
Wise, Audrey


Gunnell, John
Wray, Jimmy


Harvey, Nick



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Sir David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) for drawing my attention to the fact that, on 1 July 1975, following a Division in which the Ayes voted 222 and the Noes 13 and in which I was a Teller, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) raised with the then occupant of the Chair a point of order, in which he said:
Following the announcement of the clear intention of the Liberals to call Divisions on every amendment, I would point out that Mr. Speaker has it in his power under Standing Order 36 to rule on unnecessarily claimed Divisions, to take appropriate action and to call votes in the Chamber."—[Official Report, 1 July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 1363.]
What has happened tonight is consistent with the wise words of the hon. Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The House is certainly a mine of information this evening.

Mr. Skinner: It is fair to point out that, during the 23 years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been consistent in never trusting the Liberals. I did not do so on that occasion. I took appropriate action and, what is more, always will, because they are junior Tories.

Court of Auditors

The Paymaster General (Sir John Cope): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Court of Auditors' Report concerning the financial year 1991 together with the institutions' replies (OJ No. C330, Volume 35) and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 25th February 1993 relating to the draft Council Recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge of the General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1991.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected no amendments.

Sir John Cope: The motion takes note of the report of the Community Court of Auditors on the 1991 expenditure of the Community. It is a long report, just short of 500 pages, with a long commentary from the Commission, and it is also the subject of a long explanatory memorandum from the Treasury, which I hope that the House has found helpful.
As the House knows, the court's duty is to report whether the Community's revenue has been properly received and the expenditure properly incurred and on whether the financial management of the funds has been sound. The report is an important, independent check in itself, but it is also a valuable tool for the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and others, including the national parliaments—but especially for the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament—which are the two arms of the budgetary authority of the Community, to examine how well the Commission and the member states have managed the Community's resources.
The court's report is forwarded to the Council of Ministers and, from there, to the European Parliament. The Council and the Parliament examine the report along with the accounts and financial statement submitted by the Commission. The Council will then usually recommend, and the European Parliament will decide to give, what is called a discharge to the Commission over its implementation of that year's Community budget.
The intention is that the Council's recommendation should be discussed and, I expect, adopted at the Economic and Finance Council next Monday.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The court was critical of the aid provided for the temporary laying up of fishing vessels. The report states that access to that aid was, to say the least, unequal. What means are available to our fishermen, who have suffered, to redress the grievance? Have they the right to compensation—sometimes for having been denied fair and reasonable treatment because of the regulation—under the treaty of Rome, or do they have to wait until the treaty of Maastricht is ratified?

Sir John Cope: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman satisfactorily off the cuff, but I shall answer later in the debate if I am able. Perhaps I may proceed with general remarks about the report and the treatment likely to be accorded to it after our discussion.
The draft Council recommendation, which the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers is expected to consider on Monday, is also available to the House and is,


of course, the subject of another explanatory memorandum. However, the main explanatory memorandum, which was submitted on 5 February, gives a comprehensive summary of the report itself. The report is, by itself, an extensive survey of the Community budget; it also contains some important remarks by the court.
The report rightly emphasises the Court of Auditors' continuing concern about financial management, and control in the Community and identifies two main reasons for the deficiencies: inadequately drafted legislation, and poor arrangements for management and monitoring. These are deficiencies which go to the heart of financial control and of value for money. The Government consider that they raise issues that the Community must continue to address. Of course, those concerns are not new. Indeed, in highlighting the deficiencies of financial management, the report picks up criticisms that were central to the court's previous report, on the 1990 budget.
The Government's concern to secure value for taxpayers' money from Community spending was the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the issue with the Commission, with his ministerial colleagues and with the European Parliament, at about this time last year. A copy of my right hon. Friend's letter to the Commission was sent to the Scrutiny Committee and placed in the Library. As the House would expect, our concerns were taken seriously. Considerable advances have been made since then, although the situation is still not satisfactory.
Even before that, in 1990, an important amendment was made to the financial regulation which sets out the detailed rules for implementing the Community budget. The United Kingdom had long been concerned that the rules did not emphasise that, in spending the revenues provided by Community taxpayers, the Community did not take sufficient account of value for money. The financial regulation was amended in 1990 to include a specific reference to the need for economy and cost-effectiveness in Community spending.
In consequence, proposals for spending must now be justified by reference to value-for-money criteria. The court's most recent report picked up that requirement as a yardstick for considering the Community's performance, and drew attention to important inadequacies in that performance—notably the need for the Community to appraise proposals for spending against clear objectives before spending any money; to monitor the effectiveness of the spending at the time; and to evaluate the outcome and then adjust future programmes as necessary.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Paymaster General mentioned the letter written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the then chairman of the Finance Council—Dr. Macedo of Portugal—of which copies were sent to Commissioner Schmidhuber and the chairman of the parliamentary budgetary council of the European Parliament. The letter raised some important issues, which the right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned. As he said, the letter is in the Library for us all to see. Was there a specific response to it, or was that subsumed in the process that he has just described, which may have started a little before the letter was sent?

Sir John Cope: Yes, the process that I have described took place in 1990, as I believe I explained. There was a response to last year's letter, too. It was discussed further

and has been taken up since, as I shall tell the House in a moment. It was followed through—most importantly in the negotiations on future financing which took place in Edinburgh but also, meanwhile, in various discussions in the Economic and Finance Council.
The points raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time have been an important aspect in the consideration of the Community's finances ever since.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I appreciate the Minister's sincerity, but does he accept that what was agreed at Edinburgh was a budget of £31,000 million for the EC to spend on agriculture this year? Does he accept that the cereal mountain is the highest it has ever been in recorded history, and that we have an horrendously large set-aside system which is costing us dear? Does he accept that, so long as there is a crazy policy, no matter how good Ministers are or how hard the Commission tries, nothing can be done to resolve the problem?

Sir John Cope: My hon. Friend is not quite right; his approach to the matter is over-pessimistic. As I said, I do not think that the position is satisfactory, but I think that it improved a bit as a result of the Edinburgh considerations. The position has improved further since then.
Among the conclusions at Edinburgh, there was an unambiguous requirement that the Community's resources should not be committed without a thorough prior appraisal which demonstrated that there would be economic benefits in keeping with the resources deployed.
More specifically with reference to the structural funds, of which the Court of Auditors has been critical, the Heads of Government concluded that financial control should be strengthened, and that greater emphasis should be given to appraisal in advance, to monitoring and to evaluation afterwards. They also concluded that assistance should be allocated where appraisal showed that medium-term economic and social benefits commensurate with the resources were involved and that operations should be adjusted in accordance with the results of monitoring and evaluation.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that the additional funds to which he drew attention, which were decided on at Edinburgh, are part of the conclusions reached at Edinburgh. The different parts of those conclusions—to spend the money and to have the criteria to which I have referred—depend on one another; they are part of the same resolution.
Since the Edinburgh conference, the criteria have been applied more rigorously, although not so rigorously, no doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East would like or as I would like. In the agreement in the Foreign Affairs Council last Monday, there was a regulation for the interim cohesion fund, about which my hon. Friend, like me, will be interested. The matter was agreed in principle at Edinburgh.
The regulation agreed last Monday in the Council explicitly requires the prior appraisal of projects; it explicitly requires that, before approving a project, 1;he Commission must assess the appraisal against value for money criteria; it explicitly requires that beneficiaries have the management and audit systems to ensure that the projects are effectively implemented; and it further explicity requires that the Commission is responsible for


ensuring the adequacy of those systems. The operations are to be reviewed to ensure that the original objectives have been achieved. Those are specific requirements for which the Court of Auditors, the Council and the European Parliament, through the Budgetary Control Committee, can look out. The Commission is under an obligation to put those requirements into practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will realise that matters cannot become magically perfect in a short time, but I believe that real improvements have been taken on board by the Council of Ministers, by the Commission and by the European Parliament.
The steps that I have described concern value for money—avoiding wasted expenditure. The Community has also addressed the important issue of fraud, which is also a matter of concern. During the United Kingdom presidency, constructive steps were taken under that head. The matter was discussed at the Economic and Finance Council more than once, and we set up a high-level group of officials under United Kingdom chairmanship to agree some practical steps to improve the prevention of fraud.
Those practical steps included an improved programme of action for the Community's fight against fraud—the 45-point programme—and ways in which to improve co-operation, including the Commission agreeing to take a more positive co-ordinating role and work to continue on simplifying legislation. That is one of the weaknesses in the system, and a special group is considering it with the anti-fraud issue in mind. Vague or poorly defined legislation is one area highlighted by the Court of Auditors in the report before us. The quality of administration and financial control depends very much on the quality of the legislation on which it is based. All those are important points on fraud. The steps that I have outlined are not the whole answer to improving financial management in the Community, but they take us down the right road.
In the explanatory memorandum on the draft Council recommendation, we set out the key features, which include value for money and the importance which the Council attaches to that. Attention is also drawn to problems of management which might permit fraud or other irregularities—not fraudulent—and the Council's commitment to continuing action as agreed by ECOFIN last autumn is restated. It is also important to draw attention, as we do in the explanatory memorandum, to the Commission's commitment to review periodically the justification for on-going actions and to call on the Commission to report on the steps that it has taken to improve its internal procedures.
These are important conclusions which the Government welcome, just as we welcome the report of the Court of Auditors and its valuable comments on the financial management, value for money, evaluation of Community funds and the need for member states to assume their responsibilities more fully, because much of the Community expenditure goes from the Commission through the mechanisms in the member states themselves.
It is an important report. The explanatory memoranda on the report have given the Government an opportunity to express their views. I think it is in the interests of the House that I should not go into more detail now, but

should leave time for hon. Members to contribute and then do my best, by leave of the House, to respond to the points they raise.
We have to remember all the time that, although the legal term for Community revenue is "own resources", none of the money belongs to the Community institutions—it is taxpayers' money which has to be raised by the member states. It must therefore be used with the utmost care and attention to value for money and to the avoidance of fraud. The report of the Court of Auditors helps the Community to do just that.

Mr. Tim Smith: Can my right hon. Friend say what changes there are in the Maastricht treaty which would improve the quality of financial management in the Community institutions and enhance the accountability of the Commission?

Sir John Cope: There are some changes. The amendment to the financial regulation to which I referred was an initial step. At Maastricht, the members of the European Council built on that. Among the improvements to the treaty which were agreed, and which I believe will be ratified before long, it is made explicit that the Commission, in implementing the Community budget, is responsible for the sound financial management of the Community's finances. Responsibility for that is placed firmly on the Commission.
In addition, the Court of Auditors will be strengthened and made a full-blooded Community institution. The European Parliament's powers of scrutiny will also be strengthened. There is an explicit requirement that member states should pursue fraud against the Community's budget with the same vigour as they pursue fraud against their own national budgets.
Those changes in the treaty represent an important move forward in strengthening the framework necessary to improve the management of the Community's finances. We shall have many opportunities to debate those matters on another occasion. In the meantime, I commend the Court of Auditors' report to the House.

Mr. Andrew Smith: It would seem that the Court of Auditors' report does not have quite the same entertainment value in terms of pulling an audience as the proceedings on the previous votes. Anyone who thought that the report might be dull should read it, because the absurdities in it are equal to anything we saw in the procedural farce earlier in the House.
As the Minister said, the report is important. It covers 55,327 million ecu, or £46 billion, of expenditure, to which the United Kingdom contributed revenue of a gross £5·6 billion. The report leaves no doubt that there are errors, irregularities, fraud and waste on a disturbing scale in a number of areas of the Community's financial affairs. Some of that is the responsibility of the member states themselves, some is the result of legislation which is unclear or inconsistent, and some is the result of inadequate supervision by the Commission. Whatever its cause, it is unacceptable and more resolute action needs to be taken as a matter of urgency if it is to be rooted out.
Resolute action is crucial to ensure that public money is not wasted or misappropriated, and thereby to build public confidence in the efficacy of Community action and expenditure. No one should under-estimate the damage


which is inflicted on the whole Community and on its future by the shortcomings identified in the court's report. Given the difficulties to which the auditors referred in monitoring all the expenditure and revenues involved, it would surprise no one if, despite the quality of the auditors' work, what they uncovered was only part of the whole iceberg.
The Minister talked about the changes which the Maastricht treaty would bring about. One of those changes is that the auditors will be required to certify that the accounts are a true record of the Community's finances. It disturbs me greatly—I hope that it disturbs the Minister—that an article in The Guardian on 27 November quotes sources at the Court of Auditors as saying:
If we had to certify these accounts, we would not do so."
That shows how much progress must be made if the irregularities and fraud are to be controlled in the way in which people would expect, and if we are to have confidence in the way in which the Community's finances are being maintained.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those member states which as yet cannot properly manage their own income tax and VAT do not give us much confidence that they will properly manage EC funds?

Mr. Smith: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. It shall refer to the different numbers and sorts of discrepancies which have been discovered in different member states. On the whole, the United Kingdom's performance in terms of the regularity with which the operations are supervised that our authorities have responsibility for supervising is a good record. Sadly, that record is not equalled in some of the other member states.
The explanatory memorandum to which the Minister referred is a useful summary of the auditors' report and a helpful guide to its 496 pages. The report's dead-pan language does not fully do justice to the scale and seriousness of the problems which the Court of Auditors' report identified.
If I were to go through all the irregularities, this would be a long speech. Instead, I shall pull out some examples. In the collection of so-called traditional resources, the member states' six-monthly reports of frauds and irregularities are an important element of what is, after all, largely a delegated system of control. On that subject, the auditors say:
Useful information is rarely provided, and cannot in every case be used to justify their effectiveness"—
that is, the effectiveness of the reports. Perhaps that accounts for the fact that in 1991 the United Kingdom reported 223 such cases—nearly a third of the Community total—whereas, to take a topical example, Italy reported only 25. That may have a bearing on the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs).
It is disturbing that there were instances of identified own resources not being made available to the Community. The largest such example was one of no less than 1–4 million ecu, which one customs district in the Netherlands failed to pay over. That was rectified by the Dutch authorities when the Court pointed it out. I hope that the Government will use their voice strongly in the Council to support the Court's recommendation that the Commission monitors more closely the implementation of the relevant legislation in member states.
Also of concern is the amount of interest due to the Community on late payments of customs duties, which amounts to 25.7 million ecu—l6.9 million of it in Germany. The report states that the court has brought that matter to the attention of the Commission and the member states involved. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would say whether that money has now been paid.
There were many issues of concern relating to the operation of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. The court's report stated that about half of the expenditure of that fund involved measures that can reasonably be regarded as the inescapable consequences of surplus agricultural production: in particular, aids for the export or destruction of products—34 per cent.—and intervention—18 per cent.
In addition, the Court found that
some production aid schemes, which are intended to support rural communities, are actually obstacles to rational development. High rates of subsidy are paid in order to render viable small farms which would otherwise be uneconomic. There are premiums which encourage farms to remain small or which encourage the breaking up of farm holdings in order to qualify as small farmers.
Those premiums include higher rates of aid for small olive producers, which the Court of Auditor's report states is not an effective way of supporting rural communities, since
producers can continue to benefit from aid after they have moved to the towns and the cities".
That is plainly not a measure that supports rural communities.
The report notes that budget expenditure on the special premium for beef and veal producers has increased from 52.5 million ecu in 1987 to almost 305 million ecu in 1991. The scheme was meant to compensate for the cut in the previously excessively generous buying-in price in order to save money, but the report states:
Despite the situation of surplus production, the criteria for granting the special premium do nothing to curb As intrinsic incentive effect. The premium is not selective since there are no conditions laid down as to the type of holding that is eligible or as to the quality of the products, and worse still within the annual limit of 90 animals per holding, there is no provision for preventing increases in the number of male cattle in respect of which the premium is paid.
The Court also notes that the Commission authorised an exemption from that limit in France without any legal basis. The Commission has said that it will re-examine that issue. I should be grateful if the Paymaster General would give us more information on that subject, as it seems to be a clear instance of favourable treatment to one member state not being enjoyed by others.
In paragraph 7.56, the Commission states that many of the concerns, including those about the beef and veal premium, have been met by reform of the common agricultural policy adopted by the Council in 1992. I question whether anyone can rest easy on any of the issues. We must underline the importance of constant review arid changes in the means by which we work towards achieving the objectives of article 39 of the European Community treaty, which stated that, while we should aim to achieve
a fair standard of living for the agricultural community", we must be aware of the very real need to
increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of factors of production.
There must be a much more radical reform of the common agricultural policy. Nothing less will do.
There are other examples of irregularities and curiosities in the report. The court questioned the legitimacy in the United Kingdom of the administration of the sheep annual premium scheme, and provided an extraordinary example. Six shepherds with no more than eight sheep each formed a group with a limited company to claim for 6,024 sheep, and were awarded full payment for them. I have heard of people counting sheep, but that is ridiculous. I welcome the court's work in bringing that to light, thereby ensuring that the rules have been tightened to prevent such practices.
The report contains more worrying examples of vested interests conspiring to misuse EC taxpayers' money. It states that work on the olive cultivation register is bogged down in Greece, blocked by a lack of funds in Portugal, and behind schedule in Spain. It also says that spot checks are limited. Such a lack of information causes severe problems. In Corfu, flat rate aid was paid on three times the amount of olive oil that was produced.
Wine-growing measures financed by the agricultural guidance fund also attracted criticism. The report says that the simultaneous use of two opposing methods—premiums for replanting and for the final grubbing up of vines to achieve market equalibrium—was illogical. It states that wine growers using land of identical quality may choose between one Community aid to replant their vines and another for their final grubbing up. One wonders where the guidance element in the work of the EC agricultural guidance and guarantee fund is to be found.
The report says that there is some inconsistency in promoting measures which increase production capacity in a market that is in constant imbalance because of plentiful supply and constantly falling demand, while maintaining the possibility of distilling surplus quantities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about the court's comments on common fisheries and the seas. It questioned the operation of withdrawal premiums to compensate for monetary abstention from profitable fishing, supposedly to encourage conservation of fish stocks. The report says that compensation has been paid in Portugal
for days when no fishing would be carried out anyway thus adding about 40 per cent. to the European taxpayers' contribution.
The report also says:
the amount of the temporary withdrawal premiums is not attractive enough to dissuade fishermen from carrying out fishing activities at times when it is possible to fish for the most profitable species—which are the ones that are threatened by overfishing.
According to the Court, 40 per cent. of expenditure on temporary withdrawal premiums subsidises traditionally low periods of fishing activity.

Dr. Godman: I should like to ask my hon. Friend about what I call the Portugese fiddle. Is he confident that the Maastricht treaty, if it is ever resuscitated by the Danish people, will lead to a diminution of such frauds? Does he agree that it is more likely that the Maastricht treaty will increase fraud?

Mr. Smith: The provisions in Maastricht for enhancing the status and powers of the Court of Auditors and putting stronger injunctions on member states and the Community to secure value for money in the Community's programme should help. However, as I said earlier, more

determined action is required. The British Government, through the Council of Ministers, should be calling for the schemes which are most open to abuse to be threatened with closure unless the abuses are ended. Some of those programmes required radical reform.

Sir Teddy Taylor: May I point out that the British Government have no power to do anything except ask?

Mr. Smith: The British Government have the power to raise the issue in the Council of Ministers. The Minister said that these matters were pursued during the British presidency. I share the scepticism of hon. Members who believe that member Governments wanting those abuses stamped out must take a firm stand.

Dr. Godman: There is a discrepancy in the Maastricht treaty in the way in which the two courts—the European Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors—have been treated. The European Court of Justice will have formidable powers, particularly in imposing sanctions against recalcitrant member states, but no such equivalent powers have been given to the Court of Auditors.

Mr. Smith: As I said earlier, the powers of the Court of Auditors would certainly be strengthened by Maastricht. It would be required to provide a statement of assurance on the reliability of the Community's accounts and there would be an explicit responsibility on member states to tackle fraud. As we have said on other occasions, the treaty is a framework. What policies are initiated and pursued through that framework is a matter of political will.
We are in favour of tougher action to stamp out abuses, including the 5 million ecu of movable property which was unaccounted for in the European Parliament. Our colleagues there will need to look into that before effectively discharging themselves from the censure of the auditors' report.
The final, and perhaps most disturbing, items on the list of abuses as they involve taking food out of the mouths of starving children, are the failings in the food aid programmes to the former Soviet Union, Bulgaria and Romania. As well as identifying appalling instances of mismanagement, the court questioned the practice of charging that to the agricultural budget.
There are a number of disturbing examples of how things went badly wrong. For example, the Soviet authorities gave the Commission a list of beneficiaries. The Commission did not specify exact destinations when making the individual transportation contracts. The report states that, as a consequence,
the German Red Cross discovered that some organisations they chose to deliver to had already received deliveries from the French Red Cross and could not store any more items. The Commission accepted alternative destinations …and met the consequential increase in transport costs from 262 ecu per tonne to 392.39 ecu per tonne.
In February 1992, of the 79,500 tonnes for which the Commission had to organise transport, only 44,000 tonnes had been taken over by the transporters. The remainder was costing the Community taxpayers storage charges, because dates of final delivery had not been properly specified in the contracts with the transporters.
It is also appalling to read about 740 tonnes of skimmed milk powder delivered to Bulgaria and subsequently sold for foreign currency on the Egyptian market, using a


Greek middle man. So blatant was the fraud that they did not even bother changing the packaging before it went on sale.
The House should commend the work of the Court of Auditors in bringing all that to light. While it would be wrong to blame the Commission for all the irregularities uncovered, some of which are clearly the result of member states and agencies not getting their act together, it would be equally wrong to accept the Commission's grudging response to some of those very serious matters. It is not good enough for it to say, as it does on page 322:
The Commission agrees that some difficulties arose in the implementation of these schemes of emergency aid to Eastern Europe"—
an understatement if ever there was one. It then went on:
The Commission does not agree with the Court's accusations of a lack of transparency and insufficient controls on the operations.
It is plain that there were not sufficient controls on the operations.
Still less is it acceptable for the Commission to accuse the court, as it was reported as doing in The Guardian on 27 November, of making observations and a recommendation
relating directly to the policy goals and content of Community action.
It is the job of a proper audit not merely to check that the accounts add up—and it is clear from what I have said and from what the auditors were quoted in that article as saying that in many of those programmes the figures did not add up—but to assess whether the programmes and procedures pursued were actually geared, and geared consistently, to the objectives set by Community laws, regulations and policies.
I therefore support what the Government say in the explanatory memorandum about the importance of a rolling action programme to tackle fraud, improvements to financial control, and better co-ordination by the Commission and between member states. However, I believe that more needs to be done. After all, for the past 14 years, the Government have been sitting on the Council of Ministers. They have seen a succession of reports, a number of which have raised irregularities and frauds as

blatant as those in the report before us. As well as handing out their share of criticism, the Government should take their share of responsibility, in that the Council is responsible for overseeing the Commission and for setting the direction of Community policy.
Does the Paymaster General undertake that, both on the instances cited in the report that relate to the United Kingdom and on the broader criticism of the various programmes in the report, he will report back to the House on the progress, or otherwise, being made with actions to eliminate abuse? There has been insufficient follow-up and tough action on many of the abuses and irregularities that the Court of Auditors has identified. The House and the people should have the right to know exactly what action is being taken by the British Government to stamp out such grotesque abuses of the Community budget.
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on additionality, which the auditors say in paragraph 599 is still riot sufficiently verifiable? Can he assure the House that the Government will be able to satisfy the Commission on additionality so that the up to £1 billion in European Community regional aid grant which has been put at risk by delays in matching funding for projects for Britain's most depressed regions, can go ahead?
Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell us the position on the accumulated devaluation effect on Britain's allocation from the European social fund, amounting over the period of 1990 to 1992 to some £82 million? Will that extra money be spent as it should be for the benefit of the long-term unemployed and our depressed regions, or will it be a repeat of the British presidency, when the Government forced out of the Edinburgh summit the proposal for £160 million expenditure on training for those who had lost their jobs or whose jobs were at risk, despite support for the project by the other 11 member states?
When Community resources appear to have been misappropriated elsewhere, it would be an indefensible irony if resources to which Britain's depressed regions and unemployed people were legitimately fully entitled were to be denied them—not, on this occasion, by fraud in the rest of the EC but by the Government's dogma and reluctance to act.

Mr. Tim Smith: It has taken us about 500 years to develop a satisfactory system of audit of public expenditure in the United Kingdom, and our present system goes back 130 years. Against that background, it is not altogether surprising that the European Community institutions are still effectively in their infancy when it comes to dealing with audit. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) that the report and its predecessors leave much to be desired.
We know from our experience of audit in the United Kingdom that there is financial and regularity audit and, secondly, value for money audit. On both counts, it is clear that the EC institutions, and the Commission especially, fail completely to meet the standards that we as taxpayers are entitled to expect. First, on financial and regularity audit, it is clear that there is widespread fraud throughout the Community. There are not the standards that one would expect. Secondly, on value for money audit, it is clear that there are not the systems in place for assessing value for money. Criteria are not set out before projects are developed. Systems are not in place for assessing projects after projects have been executed. There are fundamental concerns which have been raised year after year.
There are two basic reasons for the concerns. First, there is no great incentive for individual member states to make significant improvements. If a state tackles its own back yard, so to speak, the result will be a reduced amount of money from the Community. In other words, there is a disincentive to tackle the issues. Secondly, there is still a less than satisfactory system of accountability. If we compare the system of accountability of the Commission to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament with the system which prevails in the United Kingdom —we have a National Audit Office which reports to the Public Accounts Committee, which then submits to tough questioning the accounting officers responsible for public expenditure—we see that the system in the Community leaves much to be desired. We must improve the systems of accountability, and I do not suppose that that will be easy.
It is not a coincidence, for example, that the number of cases of reported fraud was higher from the United Kingdom than from any other member state. That merely shows that we have a reasonably effective system. Unfortunately, the systems in other member states leaves much to be desired. It is almost certain that the prevalence of fraud in other member states is much greater, which shows that they are not very good at, or not especially interested in, trying to detect it.
I think that it is down to the European Parliament to take a greater interest in these matters. It is impossible for us, in a 90-minute debate, to give proper consideration to these problems. The report before us goes into great detail on all the different areas of Community expenditure. The report should be considered paragraph by paragraph by the Budget Commitees of the European Parliament. The Committees should call before them the Commissioners responsible for the various heads of expenditure and keep them there until they give satisfactory replies to questions about who was responsible and how matters will be put right in future. That seems to be the right forum.
I have given some thought, as have other members of the Public Accounts Committee in the past, to whether we

could carry out the function in the United Kingdom, but I have come to the conclusion that that is not possible. The European Parliament, to which the Commission is accountable, should take a greater interest in these matters. That is why I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister what changes have been made in the Maastricht treaty to try to improve the system of financial management and accountability.
I am glad to hear that the constitutional position of the Court of Auditors will be reinforced and that the European Parliament is to be given an enhanced role. But when the treaty is ratified we shall have to see how that works out in practice. That requires not just a statement of good intent but the necessary political will on the part of those involved. I am not yet persuaded that Members of the European Parliament take all this sufficiently seriously. British taxpayers have a right to expect that money spent on their behalf by the European Commission is spent in an honest straightforward manner in accordance with the purposes for which it was voted.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East mentioned additionally. That is a difficult issue. It is difficult to demonstrate additionality when it comes to expenditure in the regions. Usually, if there is investment in a particular region, it simply means that investment in another area has been displaced. One is simply moving investment around the country or around the Community. The Department of Trade and Industry at least has some objective criteria for determining what additionality means and tries to assess projects on that basis before approving them, but it is clear from the report that there are no similar arrangements in the EC.

Mr. Alan Meale: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not saying that EC funds coming into Britain should be distributed in the way that the Government have attempted. For example, RECHAR or RETEX funding should be going not to the south of England but to areas which have lost an amazing number of jobs in coal, steel and textiles. It is illogical for the Government to come forward with such a suggestion.

Mr. Smith: I was not suggesting that such money should come to the south of England, although the rate of unemployment in some areas there is now higher than in some of the regions. I was simply pointing out that when in the past the Public Accounts Committee has considered regional expenditure—I recall a recent report on expenditure in Wales—we have naturally cross-examined the accounting officer, the permanent secretary from the Welsh Office, on the important question of additionality.
It should be possible to show that new jobs have been created and that jobs are not simply being lost elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is what additionality means, and it is important in a United Kingdom context, and in the context of European regional expenditure. That is why the Court of Auditors has drawn attention to it.

Mr. Meale: I was trying to say that RECHAR provided money from Europe for areas which had lost jobs in coal mining. RETEX, similarly, provided money for areas in Britain which had lost textile jobs. The Department of Trade and Industry has redirected that money to different areas for different jobs in different circumstances where there had been no coal mining or textile jobs in the past. That cannot be logical or correct.

Mr. Smith: I understand that, but I do not wish to be diverted down that road because it is not relevant to the report that we are discussing. The hon. Gentleman may well be right. 1 know nothing of that.
The point that I was discussing was the question of additionality in the context of the report. It is a good example of the way in which the Commission needs to tighten up on value for money and fraud. The way to achieve that is to try to enhance accountability by persuading the European Parliament to take a greater interest in these issues.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) has mentioned two important institutions, domestic and European, in this scene—the Public Accounts Committee and the European Parliament and, in particular, its Committee concerned with this topic. I shall mention both of those in the course of my remarks.
I want first to put on record a sense of dissatisfaction that it was Her Majesty's Government's intention that, however events proceeded this evening—and they have been somewhat unusual—there would be only an hour and a half for this debate. That was clearly the Government's intention in the business motion on last Friday's Order Paper. By chance, it was frustrated—but still only one and a half hours is available for this debate. That would have remained the case if the Government had been successful and the debate had started at around 7 pm. I regard that as unhealthy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) clearly showed, the report contains many items which require ventilation and some expression of dissatisfaction.
That is even more important than some hon. Members described. The question of taxation and the authorisation of its expenditure—without any question of its value for money—is a central feature of any Government. It is the responsibility of any Parliament to ensure that it is done correctly. It is also at the centre of any democracy. The European Community claims that it prides itself on being a democracy. Unfortunately, we do not have much control over the passage of money from the United Kingdom to the European Community, which the Court of Auditors oversees by way of its own resources. By virtue of the European Communities Act 1972, the Treasury hands over so much per year from the three main resources that the Community has at its disposal.
That is decided from time to time by the Economic and Finance Council, and the framework is changed roughly every five years. That expenditure does not come before the House and is not part of the Budget, although it is part of the public expenditure Estimates that we see from time to time. The House is cut out of that process.
The House is also cut out of determining how that money is spent, other than by our representatives in the respective Council. The money is spent in a number of controversial ways, but I particularly want to draw the attention of the House to the way in which that money is spent irregularly and the consequential effects, which may be political.
We know from our history that the way in which public money is distributed and those who are to benefit from it are highly political matters. In a democracy, only when Parliament and the elected representatives of those who

provide the money have complete control of it can proper democracy and accountability exist. We rely for that on the Public Accounts Committee. In the 18th century and early 19th century, the constitutional position was that those in power got hold of money through patronage, and distributed it in various ways. The Gladstonian reforms made us all respectable.
The Public Accounts Committee tries to ensure that public money is spent on the authorised purpose for which it was raised, appropriated and allocated by the House. The PAC has in its hands at least some sanction. The prospect of being summoned before the PAC or being investigated by the Comptroller and Auditor General—now an Officer of the House—has some effect, although we still have problems and read about them from time to time.
Any person—a Minister, official, or anyone else in receipt of public funds—knows of the existence of the long arm of the Comptroller and Auditor General, with the backup of the Public Accounts Committee and the threat of exposure. What is the equivalent in the Community, which has vast sums at its disposal and complex accounting because of the ecu and having to deal with different Governments and agencies in different languages? Year after year, the Court of Auditors produces a report of which we always say in our debates that if only one tenth of it applied to any one organisation, it would be given a qualification by any auditor in this country. That has been going on for years. We debate the report, and say the same things, year after year.
What happens to the report? The Commission comments on it, and then it goes to the Council. I must express some dissatisfaction. The Council acts as referee: after the national Governments have taken on board all the contents of the report, the Council then examines the Commission's responses. That is fair enough. Auditors often ask for explanations in the course of their work; they are entitled to ask questions, and many of the replies may be satisfactory—as, indeed, some of the Commission's replies may be. But what happens next?
I understand that the various member Governments and their respective Treasuries then reach some consensus on how far the Commission has given satisfaction in answering the questions raised by the Court of Auditors. When they think that the Court of Auditors is right, they should say so; when they think that the Commission has answered its questions satisfactorily, they are not drawn to the Council's attention in its discharge meeting.
As I understand it, the rights of the Public Accounts Committee within ECOFIN—the Council of Finance Ministers, which is surely the equivalent of the PAC—are concentrated in one person, the Paymaster General. He is the PAC's equivalent, but only collectively within the Council, which will meet on 15 March and reach a final conclusion—equivalent, perhaps, to a report that we might receive from the PAC.

Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman is right: I expect to represent the Government at a meeting of ECOFIN on Monday. I think, however, that the nearest equivalent to the PAC is the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee.

Mr. Spearing: In a sense, the Paymaster General may be correct: that is where the buck stops. The Budgetary Control Committee receives a recommendation, which will be drawn up by ECOFIN on 15 March—we have a draft,


or the indication of a draft, before us—and will then decide what to do. I assume that the Committee has powers to summon witnesses, to make reports and to reach some sort of conclusion. Perhaps it should issue the final judgment on the 1992 accounts.
I am rather disappointed with what is before us as I had hoped that we would be able to discuss some sort of draft recommendation. We have the explanatory memorandum, dated 25 February, which the Paymaster General has signed. In paragraph 3, he says:
In its Recommendation the Council has, in particular"—
followed by eight paragraphs. I shall not take up the House's time by reading them out, but they are a poor set of paragraphs and a shadow of what we read in the report of the Court of Auditors. I shall not embarrass the Paymaster General—or shall I?—by reading out the formulations. I hope that they were not drafted in our own Treasury, although I have no doubt that Sir Humphrey would be very proud of some of the sentences.
I will give a few samples. For instance, the Council
emphasised the importance it attaches to funds being administered in accordance with Article 2 of the Financial Regulation and reiterated its attachment to monitoring and ex-post and ex-ante assessment".
Of course. That is part of the job, is it not? There is nothing new about that. The Council also
stressed the importance it attaches to the Court of Auditors report as a tool to improve the implementation of the Community budget.
That is what is going on in the so-called discharge. I see nothing in this draft for that European Parliament Committee to get its teeth into. I know that it can look at the report of the Court of Auditors, but it ought to take its cue from the Council of Ministers' so-called discharge, because I do not believe that it is a discharge—frankly, it is a disgrace.
Hon. Members may ask me what it is upon which I base that assertion. Let us look at some of the better reports to be found in the other document that the Paymaster General signed. He has therefore done something for us. I refer to the preceding memorandum dated 5 February. Under the heading "Introduction", we read:
The Court identifies two main reasons for deficiencies in financial management and control. First, they may be due to inadequately drafted legislation.
That is just it. Many of the regulations that come before us are incapable of providing the hooks, knobs and indicators which allow auditors to get to work. It is no use having an auditor unless he has something to look at.
The memorandum says:
some of the practices used by the Commission to collect revenue arc, in the Court's view, contrary to the Financial Regulation".
That does not appear in the Council's conclusions, does it? It goes on to say:
there are deficiencies in the supporting documentation submitted by member states in respect of agricultural guarantee expenditure.
The Court of Auditors found that,
because records for VAT and GNP own resources are incomplete, transactions cannot easily be traced in the accounts.
It sounds like a qualified report all the way through, does it not?
In paragraph 21 we read:
The Court noted that a substantial proportion of the aid for the temporary laying up of fishing capacity had been granted for periods which are unfavourable for fishing".

That paragraph has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I shall therefore leave it to one side.
In paragraph 45 we see:
The Court noted that in the absence of a principal authorising or accounting officer a number of disbursements under the Fourth Lomé Convention had been made illegally …(ii) bank guarantees covering advances paid to contractors do not appear in the financial statements; …(v) because of the transfer to the new computerised accounting system, it is not possible to reconcile 20 per cent. of the records for the fifth and sixth EDFs with end-year balances.

Dr. Godman: It has been said several times that the Maastricht treaty enhances the status of the Court of Auditors. If that is so, would that enhanced status meet some of my hon. Friend's criticisms?

Mr. Spearing: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has caught me there, rather like the Paymaster General. I should have looked at that famous treaty just to see the extent to which the effective power of the Court of Auditors is increased, other than by being brought formally into the institutional family, of which it was formerly perhaps an associate member. If I looked at those articles, I suspect that I should need the help of persons who have been members of the Court of Auditors to understand them. British representatives have been very active in the Court of Auditors. Only they would be able to make the proper evaluation for which my hon. Friend correctly asks. That is perhaps beyond the powers of any hon. Member, but Treasury officials might be able to make such an evaluation.
I intend to refer to two sums of money which are of particular interest. One relates to the European Parliament. In the third volume of the draft general budget for 1993, we see, under title 3, a sum of about £13 million for what is called, under article item 3706, political activities and, under article item 3708, information about the role and work of the political groups inside the European Parliament. This country is debating whether public funds should be used to support political parties. It is less well known in this country that that already applies to the European Parliament. I am wondering to what extent the European Court of Auditors can have a look at that.
I conclude by mentioning a subject which has not been raised so far. It involves an entry by the Court of Auditors in respect of some moneys granted in support of other organisations. I refer to page 465 of the voluminous report consisting of the Commission's replies, which mentions a grant for the European Year of Tourism 1990. I cannot remember very much about it, but I should have thought that there was already plenty of tourism within Europe without the Community having to stimulate it further. However, we had a European year of tourism, which went badly wrong.
The European Parliament asked the Court of Auditors to examine the organisation. The journal states that, for the objectives of the EYT to be met, there had to be
some co-ordinated activity between the Community, the Member States and private organisations …Three types of activity were planned".
However, they did not happen.
Even more important, the resources allocated to the EYT turned out to be "7.7 Mio ECU", which I take to be 7.7 million ecu. If that is not the case, we shall no doubt hear from the Paymaster General. That sum was


allocated in Parts A and B of the 1989 and 1990 budgets …whereas Council Decision 89/46/EEC had estimated the cost at 5 Mio ECU.
Presumably, 5 million ecu, which I suppose is about £3 million or £4 million, was allocated to that particular effort, which went 50 per cent. over budget.
However, it gets worse. Subcontractors were involved, and all sorts of things went wrong. I shall not detail them all, but I quote paragraph 19.68 which states:
The Commission itself merely participated in events organized by third parties and took no initiative of its own regarding the EYT. As a result it failed to organise any sort of objective survey to evaluate the impact of the EYT, both on public opinion and on professionals in the tourist industry." I do not know what the impact was meant to be.
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) mentioned value for money. The project does not seem to have done very well, as 7 million ecu, or at least £5 million, was spent on it. I suggest to the Paymaster General that that fact could be added to the observations and recommendations if the Council wishes to discharge the accounts of which this matter is part.

Sir Teddy Taylor: 1 hope that the Government will accept that it is an insult to the taxpayer and to the Court of Auditors that a handful of hon. Members are discussing this enormous report at 12.2 am, when no one will notice, hear or care.
It is also frightful to realise that the report contains a multitude of frauds, overspending and illegal spending. With reference to illegality, page 91 states:
The Court noted that in the case of France the Commission has authorized, without any legal basis, an exemption from the limit of 90 eligible animals per year",
which is one of the key new agricultural issues. It cost a fortune. The Commission's response was that it would re-examine the issue.
Member states are acting illegally. Page 111 reveals that, in the case of a Portuguese sardine fishery, regulations were interpreted in such a way as to add 40 per cent. to the European taxpayers' contribution.
All the estimates by the Commission about the great savings that would be made seem to fade away. Page 54 outlines a case in which it was anticipated that "227 Mio ECU" was to be saved because of a remarkable change in policy, but it faded away.
There are further examples of crazy spending, of which the tobacco industry is a perfect one. Every year the expenditure increases on growing high tar tobacco and dumping it in the third world and in eastern Europe. Page 79 of the report says:
over half of the maximum guaranteed quantity of the tobacco market receives a premium which is equivalent to 75 per cent. or more of the intervention price: 15 per cent. of this quantity receives a premium equivalent to 94 per cent. or more.
The tragedy is that the scandals grow greater every year. Ministers know that—and we certainly have a most patient Paymaster General. The CAP is totally out of control, with the mountains breaking all the records and expenditure at an all-time high, so that the poor families in all constituencies are paying massive extra sums for their food.
The plain fact is that there is nothing that anyone can or will do about that. It is sad to see one of the most able and useful Treasury Ministers sitting on the Front Bench and hearing us talking about all those crazy injustices.

They are nothing to laugh at. The poor people and the local authorities of Britain are being deprived of cash for things that are needed while money is being wasted and poured down the drain.

Mr. Meale: Does the hon. Gentleman not find it peculiar that senior officials of the legal profession should be found trying to account for a document that shows an enormous amount of illegal activity and wrong auditing?

Sir Teddy Taylor: There is massive illegal activity arid illegal spending, waste and fraud—and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. It is a tragedy that here we have an able Treasury Minister who will tell us that things are being examined—my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) even made the remarkable suggestion that the European Parliament could examine those activities. But so long as we have mad crazy policies based on artificial prices, nothing can effectively be done. If we found a way of blocking out graft and corruption in our country, another means would be found.
I could mention many cases, but I want to finish my speech quickly because of the pressure of time. I simply hope that Ministers will accept that there is nothing that we can do—that, sadly, the work of the Court of Auditors is wasted, apart from annoying people who read about the graft, corruption, fraud and waste. Nothing whatever can happen. The waste will increase, the fraud will increase and the mountains will increase—unless there is some way in which policy can be changed.
Briefly, in the one minute left to me, I simply add that there is nothing that we can do to change policy. I wish that the Government would accept that. There is no way in which the CAP, for example, can be reformed. We have talked about it year after year. New plans are brought forward all the time. But the same thing always happens. Remember Lady Thatcher's wonderful attempt to spend all the money to wipe out the food mountains and insist on strict budgetary controls? Although the strict controls were there, in the first year of operation the Commission —with the help of ECOFIN and even of a British representative—got round them by declaring a metric year of 10 months to ensure that it kept within the strict budgetary controls.
The tragedy is that Ministers and Members of Parliament are kidding themselves into thinking that there is some bright solution; some new committee or some new fraud department that we could set up. I wish that they would accept the plain fact that nothing can be done. Unfortunately, the organisation of the EC is such that problems tend not to be solved. The CAP is the perfect example.
I hope that, if the hard work of the Court of Auditors and its splendid reports prove anything to anyone, they will prove that we are wasting our time year after year when we say, "We hear that more exciting things are happening in the Commission and in the Council. There are more reports, more checks, and more frauds will be detected." Nothing can be done. Things will get worse, and more costly—and the poor people and the unemployed will suffer. Everyone is suffering. The CAP is one of the greatest scandals and protection rackets in the world. We are doing massive damage to the third world by dumping all the surpluses at artificial prices.
I simply wish that honest, decent Ministers—of which the Paymaster General is certainly one—would stand up


and say, "I am sad about this; I think that it is a tragedy and a waste—but the Government and other hon. Members must work out how we can find a way of disengaging from those mad policies and stopping the waste." The only way in which we can stop the scandals and abuses is somehow to pull out from policies that can neve be, and will never be, resolved.

Sir John Cope: I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) thinks that there is no cure for any of the problems discussed this evening or for many other problems except for us to withdraw from the Community as it is now organised. I do not take that view. The problem of agriculture in the third world, to which my hon. Friend referred, would not be improved if we opted out of the EC. Nor am I prepared to agree with his judgment—to which he is entitled—that Ministers or the House should give up and say that the problem is insoluble.
I am not prepared to agree that nothing should be done. I accept that there are difficulties that we need to address and that we need to push our colleagues in the Council of Ministers. I accept that we need to ensure that the machinery of the Community is improved to deal with the problems that we have discussed and to which the report draws attention.

Dr. Godman: Will the Minister give way?

Sir John Cope: No. Many detailed points were raised and I shall try to deal with as many as I can. I shall write to hon. Members about detailed matters raised if necessary. I shall also forward a copy of the Hansard report of this evening's debate to Commissioner Schmidhuber, who is responsible for budgetary matters, to draw his attention to the strength of feeling among hon. Members of all parties about aspects of the budget and of its control.
There have been references to the control of finance in this country by the House. The mechanism in which hon. Members have much confidence, as I do, includes the Public Accounts Committee, with which we are all familiar. As hon. Members have rightly said, that mechanism has taken a long time to build up. The history of the Paymaster General's office reveals that some of my predecessors made enormous profits out of the post. From the point of view of my pockets, I am sorry that the traditions of the office have lapsed. For the past 150 years, from before Victorian times, such profits have not been possible for Paymasters General or for other Government officials. Gladstone improved the control mechanisms a good deal, but he did not start the process of tidying up the mess.
I intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to explain that the procedure is that the Council, as he rightly described, considers matters initially in detail through the Budget Committee of the Council, which is made up of Treasury or equivalent officials and which makes recommendations to Ministers—that is approximately the state at which we are now in respect of the 1990 report—after which the Council's recommendation is debated by Ministers. When duly passed, it goes on to the European Parliament.
The hon. Member for Newham, South read some extracts from the explanatory memorandum about the Council recommendations. The full Council recommendations run to 59 pages and can also be made available to the House. I know that the hon. Gentleman is extremely assiduous about looking at original documents. The explanatory memorandum is a brief summary, and I am sorry if it did not please him. The recommendations are far longer.
When the recommendations reach the European Parliament, the Court of Auditors' report goes to the Budgetary Control Committee—a different Committee from the Budget Committee—which is the nearest equivalent to the Public Accounts Committee. It starts with the Council's recommendation. In addition, obviously it considers the report of the Court of Auditors —nearly 500 pages—and the Commission's response. The relevant Commissioners give evidence to the Committee about the programmes in which they are interested. It has to decide whether or not to give a discharge, as it is called, to the budget for the year. So there are quite a number of democratic checks inserted in the process.
During the British presidency in the second half of last year, I had the benefit of appearing before the Budgetary Control Committee, something I had not done before. As a representative of the Council and not just of the United Kingdom, I attended meetings to try to explain some matters. Appearing before that Committee was not all that different from appearing before a Select Committee of the House.
The work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office is substantially the same as that of the Court of Auditors. The Court has representatives of each member state, including the United Kingdom, obviously. Its job is to go through the detail and to produce a report. It produces not just the annual report but special reports when it considers them necessary.
Additionality and RECHAR were mentioned in the debate. Receipts have always enabled programmes to be higher than they would otherwise have been. There have been changes in the United Kingdom's presentation of receipts of the European regional development fund in the public expenditure figures. They were agreed last year and they will produce greater transparency so that there cannot be accusations such as there have been in the past, and we hope that they will encourage a wider range of applications, helping to increase value for money. The Commission accepts that full provision has been made for RECHAR receipts—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 ( Exempted business).
The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have decided to ask for an investigation of the delay in the No Lobby.

The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 19.

Division No. 192]
[12.17 am


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alton, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Bates, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.






Bowis, John
Lord, Michael


Brandreth, Gyles
Luff, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bright, Graham
MacKay, Andrew


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Maclean, David


Burt, Alistair
Malone, Gerald


Carrington, Matthew
Merchant, Piers


Cash, William
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chapman, Sydney
Neubert, Sir Michael


Clappison, James
Nicholls, Patrick



Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Patnick, Irvine


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Redwood, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Richards, Rod


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Devlin, Tim
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Dover, Den
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Duncan, Alan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Dykes, Hugh
Spencer, Sir Derek


Elletson, Harold
Spink, Dr Robert


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Sproat, Iain


Fabricant, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Steen, Anthony


Fishburn, Dudley
Stephen, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Streeter, Gary


Freeman, Roger
Sykes, John




Gallie, Phil
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hague, William
Thomason, Roy


Harris, David
Thurnham, Peter


Haselhurst, Alan
Trend, Michael



Heald, Oliver
Twinn, Dr Ian


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Tyler, Paul


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Jack, Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Whittingdale, John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Widdecombe, Ann


Kirkwood, Archy
Willetts, David



Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Wood, Timothy


Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Legg, Barry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Lidington, David
Mr. Robert C. Hughes.


Lightbown, David



NOES


Barnes, Harry
Kilfoyle, Peter


Beggs, Roy
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meale, Alan


Cann, Jamie
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Connarty, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Spearing, Nigel


Davidson, Ian
Wise, Audrey


Dixon, Don



Godman, Dr Norman A.
Tellers for the Noes:


Graham, Thomas
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mr. Jimmy Hood.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Court of Auditors' Report concerning the financial year 1991 together with the institutions' replies (OJ No. C330, Volume 35) and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 25th February 1993 relating to the draft Council Recommendation to the European Parliament on the discharge of the General Budget of the European Communities for the financial year 1991.

Plymouth Development Corporation

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, dated 20th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.—[Mr. Redwood.]

Mr. Doug Henderson: I am grateful for the unexpected opportunity properly to open the debate. I thought that the Minister might have taken the opportunity, with such a full House, to put a strong case for the establishment of an urban development corporation in Plymouth. I thought that he and many of his hon. Friends would have considered it an important contribution to economic development, not only for Plymouth but for the south-west. An explanation of the Government's policy on urban and economic regeneration would have been helpful. He could have commented on the work of other urban development corporations since their establishment in 1981.
As the Minister knows, there has not been complete unanimity, even among Conservative Members, about the establishment of such organisations. It was not that hon. Members believed that the establishment of urban development corporations could have damaged economic development in those areas, but that more effort could have been made towards regeneration had they been designed differently.
Following his appointment as the Government's ambassador to Tyne and Wear—my own area—the Minister will be aware of the different views on the establishment of urban development corporations throughout the north-east. It is pleasing to see hon. Members representing constituencies in the north-east in their places tonight; perhaps they will participate in the debate.
The Minister will also know that there are different views on the success of those urban development corporations. I would have thought that he would want to itemise at least some of their strengths, and acknowledge some of the weaknesses that have been apparent not only to those who take a close interest in the work of the development corporations but to others whose work in the community has been affected—in the business community, the voluntary sector or other sectors. I hoped that the Minister would have made a stronger case than simply formally moving the resolution.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): It is for the convenience of the House at this late hour if I reply at the end of the debate to points that have been raised, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman has serious questions to ask, I will answer them, but had he known a little more about Plymouth, he might have known that the Labour-controlled city council is keen on the proposal and is looking to the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to expedite the business and vote for the motion.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House that the Government were persuaded to establish an urban development corporation in Plymouth by the Labour-controlled council, which recognised the terrible state of the economy in that city and


the need to do something to start regeneration. I assure the House that the Opposition are not attempting to delay the establishment of the urban development corporation.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Is there not a certain arrogant and sinister attitude on the part of the Minister, who has been given powers to introduce an order defining an area and giving it advantages over other areas? It is an important power, granted by primary legislation in the House. The order is not subject to amendment; we have to take it or leave it. It is subject to a maximum time of one and a half hours, and the Minister did not even have the courtesy to explain what governed the issue of the order and outline the powers that he is using.
It is an example of the overweening arrogance of a Government who, in 1992, turned out more statutory instruments than any Government in the history of Parliament. It is an arrogant use of power by the Government, who are piling on more regulations, the most unaccountable part of our parliamentary democracy, than any previous Government.

Mr. Henderson: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, and I am glad that he has brought them to our attention, not only in regard to the issues we are discussing tonight but, as he rightly points out, on a number of other issues where shortened parliamentary procedures have been adopted in preference to a full debate.
The Opposition make no attempt to delay the establishment of the urban development corporation. Somewhat cynically, the Government announced their intention to establish such a body in the run up to the general election, and there has been much criticism in Plymouth of the fact that it has now taken nearly 12 months for the Government to lay an order in the House to that effect. If there are any criticisms about delay, the Government should remember their apparent difficulties in introducing the measure.
Our purpose in praying against the order was to enable a full debate to take place in the Chamber, albeit in an hour and a half, on developments in the dockyards in Plymouth and the linked issues of economic development throughout that city and its travel-to-work area.
I would argue—I hope that my case convinces at least some hon. Members—that, if the important aim of regenerating the dockland and the travel-to-work areas in Plymouth is to be achieved, it must be done in the context of the economic development of the whole of the south-west region. People in that part of the country recognise the absolute importance of Plymouth as a major centre, which encompasses a significant proportion of the population, the economic activity and the potential economic activity in the south-west. They recognise that, if Plymouth does well, the whole of the south-west does well.

Mr. David Harris: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's new-found concern for the welfare of the south-west. Is he saying, with the authority of an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, that he is in favour of the contract for the refitting and overhaul of Trident going to Devonport rather than Rosyth? Is that the Opposition's view? If so, we welcome it.

Mr. Henderson: I rather suspected that that matter would be raised by Conservative Members. I have already had some discussions today on that matter, in another forum. The policy of the Labour party is that the refitting of Trident is of such strategic importance that a country such as Britain requires options. That means that a capability must be retained in both Rosyth and Plymouth, so that Britain can properly maintain its armed forces. Opposition defence spokespersons have made that position quite clear, and I reiterate it this evening.

Mr. Gary Streeter: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that it is Labour party policy to have a nuclear capability in both Rosyth and Devonport to maintain a Trident boat? Has he any idea what the cost of that would be?

Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has not considered what has been happening previously with the refitting of important MOD vessels. Maintaining a Trident submarine does not occupy all the work of any particular yard. What I am saying, and what those involved in shipbuilding and ship repair recognise, is that a yard in the modern world must have a greater flexibility than has been the case with some yards.
Some yards in the north of England may suffer because of their over-concentration on one form of naval refit. Given a joint capability between Rosyth and Devonport, into that can be built a capability to undertake other important work for the MOD. I am sure that those who work in the dockyards at both Devonport and Rosyth will welcome the Labour party's position.

Mr. David Jamieson: Rather than discussing the Labour party's view on the nuclear refit contract, what we should be discussing—and what I thought Conservative Members would have raised—is the Government's procrastination and delay with the contract. Indeed, Conservative Members have often said that the Government have subjected the contract to delay. That delay is harming the economic future of the area.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point that concerns people both in the dockyard and in the whole of the Plymouth community.
The reason for the order is that the Government recognise that, even if the refitting of Trident goes to Devonport, there will still not be sufficient employment to regenerate the dockland and the wider economic areas of Plymouth, and that further action is required. Indeed, when the Minister replies, he may argue that a UDC is a proper way to proceed.
I hope to establish that the UDC acting alone would be insufficient to achieve adequate urban regeneration in Plymouth, a city which has served the nation well. If my history is reasonably accurate, it has served the country from Elizabethan times, and perhaps before, through two world wars to the present. It is regrettable, however, that the city has fallen on hard times. There has been a serious decline in naval dockyard work and the work force in the yard has been halved over the past five years. The consequences of the recession in the United Kingdom generally, and in the south-west particularly, have been felt deeply in Plymouth during recent years. There is much evidence to confirm the difficulties that the city faces.
In the past, it would have been extremely surprising to find Plymouth high on the list of cities and urban areas qualifying for urban aid. Unfortunately, that is now the reality, and that fact reflects the difficulties that the city faces. Since the late 1980s, Plymouth has been eligible for urban aid. Unemployment is 13·4 per cent., which is damaging for such a city. It is similar to the levels of unemployment that are to be found in areas in the north of the country, which have traditionally suffered from the difficulties of economic degeneration.
In the Plymouth, Sutton constituency, which covers part of the area in which the proposed UDC will be employed, unemployment has increased by 104 per cent. over the past three years.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is my hon. Friend aware that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) I went to Plymouth several times in the late 1980s as a member of the Public Accounts Committee? That stemmed from work that we had been doing as members of the Committee on the contractorisation of management in the dockyard. We were able to predict the immense damage that would be done to the yard by the arrangements that the Government were introducing. When I went to Plymouth, everyone recognised that it was inevitable that there would be major redundancies. Plymouth then was not in a position to deal with the problems that were to confront it in the future. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to comment on that.

Mr. Henderson: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the matter. A point which has been made forcefully to me over the past three years, during which I have made numerous visits to the south-west, including Plymouth, is that, when contractorisation or privatisation is under way, there is concern only with work which existed in the past or, at the very best, which currently exists. It seems that no one is concerned with how work will be created or generated in future. That is because very few will have a stake in that work, and that is one of the great weaknesses of privatisation. That has been felt deeply by the work force at the dockyard at Plymouth.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Government were considering contractorisation, there was an argument in Plymouth about the nature and nationality of the company that was being considered for the contract. This was many years ago, but there was a great deal of argument about Brown and Root. It was felt that, because it was not a British company, it would never understand the dilemma of running a management system that would lead to unemployment. It was felt that the fact that it was not a British company would detract from its ability to secure the future of the yard.
I think that events have proved that correct. Once that contractor came in, it was the beginning of the end for the city. Over the years, many have complained about what happened.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. If I had more time, I would make it clear that I do not take a narrow nationalistic view of economic development or even economic ownership. There are occasions when that can be an advantage, as some of my hon. Friends from Sunderland have acknowledged. But there are instances where ownership is transferred to a

foreign source—foreign to a particular area, not necessarily foreign in a nationality sense—which means that is has less of a commitment to the traditions and future prosperity of an area.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he may wish to comment further on that point, which I am sure a number of his constituents will have made to him.
As the Minister said in an intervention, the Labour-controlled city council in Plymouth supports the establishment of the urban development corporation. The Opposition also support it. But there is concern about the delay in establishing the body. As unemployment in, and the economy of, the Plymouth area continue to deteriorate relentlessly, there is no way in which that damage can be redressed. The delay in establishing the development corporation has further weakened the ability of the Plymouth economy to tackle the problems it faces and to begin regeneration.
I also welcome the close liaison between the local authority and the Department of the Environment on the analysis of the problems that face Plymouth—the urban degeneration that has taken place in recent times and the need to work together to try to establish a basis for future prosperity.
It is important that there is that consensus, so that often unnecessary disputes about planning and the location and nature of particular developments, which has often occurred in other urban development corporations where there has not been such a consensus, can be avoided and the best use made of limited resources. That can happen when planning priorities are agreed.
I welcome the change in the Government's position and their recognition of the increasing need to work closely with a local authority on any development schemes in our urban areas. The commitment given by the local authority in Plymouth augurs well for success in future if other conditions, which I hope to mention later, are met.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend talks about the willingness to work together, but we have a reference in the explanatory note to eight members, in addition to the chairman and deputy chairman. Has my hon. Friend any information on how those eight members will be selected? Will they be representatives of the local authority—

Mr. Redwood: Yes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why did not the Minister make a speech setting out such matters, instead of moving the motion formally so that hon. Members would not have to intervene to secure the facts? My hon. Friend might be able to help me.

Mr. Henderson: I can help my hon. Friend. I have been advised by the local authority that it has some concord with the Government on the way in which the board will be established. I am not sure whether it agrees 100 per cent. with the Government's proposal on board membership. I understand that a chairman has still to be found. However, the Minister may be able to announce this evening that that problem has been overcome. The local authority has, to some degree, accepted the structure of the board, and I think that it hopes to participate in it.

Mr. Streeter: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hostility shown this evening by Opposition Members


towards the Plymouth UDC, particularly expressed by the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will be noticed in Plymouth and not forgotten? The hon. Gentleman should take that on board.

Mr. Henderson: I had hoped that interventions would be helpful, but the hon. Gentleman's comment was not. I listened carefully to the remarks of my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). They were testing the issue, in the hope that the Minister, when he winds up, would meet some of the points that they raised and which are important to the people of Plymouth. The hon. Gentleman must get it firmly in his mind that the Labour party will take no lessons on urban regeneration from the Conservative party. I reaffirm, and made it unequivocally clear, that we support measures to support and stimulate economic regeneration—particularly in rundown city areas, including those of Plymouth.

Mr. Jamieson: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) visited Plymouth with me in 1986, and I was grateful to him for his support for the local economy. I wonder how many Conservative Members can say that they visited Plymouth dockyard in 1986 or earlier, and expressed great concern for its future and for that of Plymouth, and predicted many of the difficulties that Plymouth now faces.

Mr. Henderson: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend, who reinforces a point that I tried to make. The people of Plymouth know the truth of my hon. Friend's remarks, and they showed, in the way that they expressed their preference at the last general election, whom they trust with the area's development.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may clarify my position in the light of earlier interventions. As a Labour Member of Parliament, I have no difficulty accepting the development corporation. In fact, I positively support the principle. However, we are debating the scrutiny of legislation.
The people of Plymouth will want to know that Parliament has considered the implications. We have no difficulty with the proposition—I hope that the proposal will deal with the problems of Plymouth, and certainly those that I identified when I visited it with my hon. Friend some years ago. I wish the people of Plymouth the very best of good luck with the proposal.

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his further intervention, which made clear the point that he intended to make clear earlier. My hon. Friend has stated his firm commitment to the people of Plymouth and to their need to develop their economy.
The Labour party supports the urban development corporation's establishment, but I have certain worries —which I have expressed on other occasions, in relation to the Urban Regeneration Agency that the Government hope, with the approval of another place, to establish shortly, linked to the activities of urban development corporations throughout the country.
My first concern relates to resources. I invite the House to compare the proposed level of resources for Plymouth development corporation, totalling £45 milion over five

years, with the amount of public money that has been injected into Plymouth in the past, one way or another, in defence work or contracts. The sum of £45 million over five years is fairly small by comparison.
I make a comparison also with the amount of development money given to Wales. South Wales and south-west England have populations of similar size. Next year, the Welsh Development Agency will receive from the public purse £171 million for one year. That compares with £9 million for the Plymouth development corporation, and puts the Government's commitment into perspective.
I hope that the Government will have further thoughts about development in the south-west of England. If a strong case can be made for economic development stimulated by public finance in south Wales, where unemployment is 10·4 per cent., surely a similar argument can be advanced for the economic regeneration of the south-west of England, with a similar population and unemployment of over 10 per cent.
Notwithstanding what the Minister has said in our debates about the establishment of an Urban Regeneration Agency, perhaps he will recognise that, although urban development corporations can be of some value in tackling the specific problems of particular areas, if there is to be an overall economic regeneration, it is important that the whole region is on the way up and receives a stimulus. That cannot possibly be achieved through the efforts of the UDC, which has neither the powers nor the resources to tackle the problem.
The Minister should realise that what is really required for the economic regeneration of the south-west—and the full economic regeneration of Plymouth—is the establishment of a regional development agency similar to those established in both Wales and Scotland. That proposition carries wide support across the political divide in the south-west.
If the Government are serious about economic regeneration in Plymouth and the south-west, they should consider how the work of the proposed urban development corporation could be incorporated in the overall work that would be co-ordinated and undertaken by a development agency in the south-west. The establishment of such an agency was a firm Labour commitment at the last general election, and continues to be so: we recognise the importance of such bodies.
I hope that, in establishing the development agency, the Government will be able to build on the strengths that have been identified in the structures and work of UDCs in other parts of the country, and that they will recognise the failures of other development corporations.
The House recently debated the effectiveness of a UDC established in the east end of London, and a fairly wide argument has been conducted among all sorts of people involved in the question of urban regeneration and the best way in which it can be achieved. It has been alleged that the failures of the London dockland development corporation resulted largely from the adoption of an excessively narrow approach, based on the philosophy that, if a new property development is established, some use will have to be made of that development, and that there will be a trickle-down effect which will regenerate a wider area, incorporating the people who live in the area and providing them with work.
As the Minister well knows, the evidence of what has actually happened in docklands completely contradicts


what was intended to happen. Docklands has been a complete failure, and many of its main projects have become white elephants. The classic example is Canary Wharf, an under-utilised property development which has done very little to regenerate the economy of that part of east London and very little to provide employment for people who were previously employed in the area and have lost their jobs, partly through the clearance of the area to provide an opportunity for property development. It has also done very little to incorporate the local community into the work of Canary Wharf: indeed, the project is not supported by the community.
As a result, only 15 per cent. of the Canary Wharf building is now occupied; 85 per cent. is redundant, with little prospect of reaching its full capacity in the near future. Of the three major companies that have taken a stake in Canary Wharf, one is the developer, which has used it as a base for its administration. The last thing that Plymouth needs is its own empty Canary Wharf overlooking Plymouth Sound. What Plymouth needs is an integrated project to regenerate this area.
The Minister will already have heard some of the arguments. They have not been put forward on a narrow, partisan, party political basis. My argument about the failure of property-led development has been put to the Minister by the developers upon whom he has to rely if there is to be any prospect of development in Plymouth. It is an argument that has been put to him by developers, development consultants, local businesses, the British Urban Regeneration Association and by the Minister's economic advisers, such as Professor Robson at Manchester university and Mr. Nigel Smith, a property consultant with Drivers Jonas.
Many others have also made the point forcefully to the Government: that there can be no proper economic development if we rely completely on property development, and that there have to be other forms of integrated development. That is what Plymouth and other parts of the country need.
Plymouth needs wider power to enable it to support the work of an urban development corporation that can be integrated into the structure of a development agency. I refer, for example, to the power to develop infrastructure that covers a wider area than that covered by the urban development corporation—to transport facilities and other utilities for the city of Plymouth. Wider powers are needed to enable aid and grant to be given to companies that need it, whether they are involved in engineering, shipbuilding, or other sectors of the economy. Powers are required to enable industrial promotion to take place. Powers are needed to provide marketing opportunities and business advice—all the things that are done by the Welsh Development Agency.
Those hon. Members who represent constituencies in the south-west may be unaware of Lord Walker's view. He has been appointed chairman of the Urban Regeneration Agency, which is to cover the rest of England, including the south-west. When Lord Walker was a Member of this House and Secretary of State for Wales, he recognised the importance of development agencies. In his autobiography, "Staying Power", he said:
We calculated that by creating new businesses, helping existing companies to grow and attracting inward investment to Britain from overseas we could bring down unemployment to the lowest figure in England.
He was talking about Wales at that point.

I quickly realised that my best instrument for achieving all this was the Welsh Development Agency. It was flexible, could help with the property side, offer grants in line with the EEC rules. I gave it more money
he says proudly—
to expand the job.
That is what Lord Walker says is necessary for Wales.
Some of Lord Walker's wisdom surely applies to the problems of the south-west of England. A regional development agency is needed to reinforce the work that can be conducted on a narrower geographical base by the urban development corporation.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on the arguments for urban regeneration that he has heard from many hon. Members since he assumed this responsibility nearly 12 months ago. He will hear other hon. Members say that it is crucial for the urban development corporation to have the resources that it needs if it is to make an impact on Plymouth's economy. Those resources must be comparable to those that are available for urban development in, for instance, south Wales.
There is a need for close liaison between Government Departments so that one Department is not running in one direction and another Department in a different direction. There is already some strain between the interests of the Ministry of Defence and those of the Department of the Environment over the establishment of the agency.
It is important that there should be no further delay in the establishment of the body. There is a need for the close liaison, which has been established with the council—a fact I welcome—to continue. Local people must be fully involved in any decisions made, and I hope that the Minister will agree that monitoring committees should be established where development work covers a very small area.
Many strengths have been identified in urban development corporations in other parts of the country, and I am sure that hon. Members will bring them to the Minister's attention. I hope that, in establishing the development corporation in Plymouth, the Minister will be able to incorporate the best practices and that he will recognise the forceful arguments made by virtually everyone involved in urban redevelopment. It cannot be undertaken successfully on a narrow basis—it cannot be undertaken if the basis of urban regeneration is property development alone. There is a need for a fully integrated approach, so that jobs have as important a role as property development.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I welcome the opportunity to take part in an important debate about the Plymouth development corporation. Although the hour is late, it is never too late to put the case for Plymouth.
I was not impressed by or pleased with the grudging welcome given by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to this important urban development corporation, which is greatly welcomed in Plymouth, even by the Labour-led city council. It is typical of the Labour party to put forward someone from the north-east to talk about an urban development corporation in the south-west, two areas about as far apart as they could be. The hon. Gentleman displayed a lack of knowledge of Plymouth, and of the Royal William yard in particular, by comparing it to Canary Wharf. There is



absolutely no comparison. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman displayed such a lack of knowledge and did not see fit to welcome an exciting proposal.
The motion is the final parliamentary step of the Plymouth development corporation becoming a reality. We look forward with great excitement to 1 April when it will be up and running. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities for his personal effort in causing this day to arrive, as there was a danger in the autumn statement that the £45 million for Plymouth might disappear. We would have understood, but my hon. Friend fought diligently for the city. On 26 March, he is to speak at a conference in Plymouth; I can assure him not just of a warm welcome but of a hero's welcome. If he carries on in the same way, a statue will be erected to him on the Hoe, alongside that of Sir Francis Drake.
I wish to put the urban development corporation in context. The south-west is suffering from the effects of the recession. It has three traditional industries: agriculture, tourism and a defence-related industry.

Mr. Harris: And fishing.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) reminds me that we also have a vital fishing industry, which he diligently protects at every opportunity. For different reasons, all those industries are experiencing difficulty. In that context, the UDC is very welcome.
We must also understand that Plymouth suffers from peripherality. It is more than 120 miles from any larger city. That cannot be said about any place other than London. It means that, in times of difficulty, no other industries are waiting to move to our part of the world.
I am delighted that the Minister has acknowledged that Plymouth is a special case. The creation of the UDC is also a reflection of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to the south-west. It is good to see the commitment of which he speaks becoming a reality and taking concrete form tonight.
As has already been said, Plymouth has suffered from a rundown of the dockyard since 1985. We have lost 8,000 jobs in that period and unemployment now stands at roughly 14 per cent. It is also true, as I have often said in the House, that we are suffering from the uncertainty about the outcome of the Trident contract—if my voice is a little croaky, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is caused by the excitement of the hour. It is critical for our city that Plymouth be chosen for the work. We can do it well and cost-effectively, at a price that other parts of the country cannot match. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North has not been able to confirm clearly to the House tonight that it is Labour party policy for the Trident contract to come to Plymouth. That will be noted in Plymouth.

Mr. Jamieson: Does the hon. Gentleman share my abject disappointment at the constant delay and change in dates for the announcement of the nuclear refit contract?

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) for intervening in the debate. He knows only too well that it is my commitment to my constituents that I shall fight for them

at every opportunity. Of course, the frustration that we have suffered in Plymouth at the delay in awarding the contract is a matter for concern.
Because we are in difficulty, we welcome the urban development corporation all the more. I see the corporation as the cavalry coming over the hill—£45 million over five years is a substantial sum in anyone's book. I believe that it will be a catalyst for change and progress in Plymouth. It will be a pump-priming exercise that will attract private sector investment. The Minister is already aware of the private sector activity in Plymouth which, in combination with the local authority, has already set up a company to shadow the corporation and incur some of the early expenditure so that time is not lost. I hope that the pump-priming exercise will produce jobs for the people of Plymouth. That is what our young people want—and I believe that the £45 million will be a catalyst, a springboard and a turning point which will lead to the creation of jobs for the people of Plymouth. That is why I welcome it so much.
Now I shall go into one or two details concerning the areas involved in the UDC. First, I hope that the Mount Wise area will be used primarily for development to raise extra cash for the other flagship facilities. The Royal William yard will be the flagship of the development, and the challenge for the board of the UDC will be to produce the right solution—the right scheme, which will be lively and attract inward investment.
The third area—RAF Mount Batten, in my constituency—must be kept for recreation. The people of Turnchapel, who live around the area, want it to be left as an open space for recreation, where the people of Plymouth can come and walk and enjoy the beautiful scenery and the beautiful sea. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that he will bring every pressure to bear on the board to listen to the voice of local people.
My hon. Friend may be aware that I attended a meeting of the Turnchapel residents and preservation association last Friday, and heard people's concerns about RAF Mount Batten. I pledged to them—I repeat that pledge tonight—that a month or so after the UDC is set up I will arrange a meeting between the residents of Turnchapel and the board so that the board, too, can hear the concerns of local people. That is what we want in Plymouth, and I am sure that the Minister will be able to give us assurances.
In replying to the debate, will my hon. Friend the Minister also confirm that one of the priorities for the board should be to ensure that local workers are engaged in any development work? Will he confirm that, as far as possible, local contractors will be engaged to do up the properties, for example, so that local people can enjoy the benefits?
One of the Labour party's many failings is that it does not welcome good news. It delights in talking things down, whether in the country generally or in Plymouth. Plymouth has gone through a difficult patch. We have real needs, of which the most pressing is the need for jobs. Today's move is welcome because it will lead to the creation of further jobs. Some Opposition Members talk down Plymouth, but with this Government's assistance it can be a boom town of the 21st century. It has so many things going for it: the attractive environment, the facilities that it affords, an excellent and skilled work force—[HON. MEMBERS: "An excellent Member of Parliament."] My hon. Friends are kind to refer to the representation that Plymouth, Drake and Plymouth, Sutton enjoy. I welcome


the order. It is an important turning point for the city of Plymouth. It is to be welcomed widely in the House and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his efforts in making it a reality.

Mr. David Jamieson: I too am pleased that the debate is taking place tonight and that it gives us the opportunity to discuss Plymouth and the economic needs of the south-west. Unlike the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I shall not congratulate the Minister on his comments. I shall wait until I hear them before congratulating him on them. I may do so when the debate has finished.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) for his comments of support this evening. I would not sneer at any hon. Member who spoke as warmly in favour of Plymouth as my hon. Friend has done tonight, wherever he came from.
To reinforce the point, I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for his support over the years. He came to the dockyard many years ago and spoke to the work force, to the unions, to me and to others. He spoke warmly in favour of the work force. He accurately predicted what has now come to pass—that we should lose many jobs. The only way in which he was wrong was that he underestimated the number of jobs that would be lost. He was accused of scaremongering.
The development corporation proposal for Plymouth is to be welcomed. The proposal was first mooted way back in 1985. The hon. Member for Sutton said that he wanted to erect a statue in the Minister's honour. If we do erect a statue and if progress is made at the same rate as the announcement of the development corporation, the Minister will be drawing his pension before we see the unveiling of the statue. He can come to my constituency, in which the dockyard lies, and I shall be happy to unveil the statue.
It was in 1985 that the Secretary of State for Defence announced the release of the Royal William yard because it was surplus to requirements. It has taken us eight years to get to where we are now. The proposal has, like so many other proposals, been subjected to prevarication and delay. There has been little action over the years, and it has been very slow. My regret is that, during that time, the buildings that are owned by the Ministry of Defence have fallen further into decline and decay.
We now welcome the proposal for the Royal William yard, for Mount Batten and for Mount Wise, the three areas that we are discussing. There are many other areas of urban decay in Plymouth that need to be addressed. Many of those areas were outlined in the bid that Plymouth made last year for city challenge which, I regret to say, was unsuccessful.

Mr. Streeter: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, because I am sure that he is drawing to the end of his remarks, can he say whether the city has welcomed the £1·8 million from the urban partnership fund for which my hon. Friend the Minister is also responsible? Is not that substantial compensation for us not getting the city challenge bid?

Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment about the length of my speech—a triumph of optimism over reality. We welcome any amounts that come to the city, small and late though they may be.
In a way, the south-west has suffered from having too good an image, which has concealed many of its problems. It is seen very much as a holiday and tourist area. Important and vital though that part of the economy is, we need more than that to survive. Over the years, Plymouth has needed more to survive.
For many years, Plymouth has been dependent on manufacturing industry, which has been linked almost exclusively to defence. The old town of Devonport in my constituency did not exist when Plymouth dock came to the area. The dockyard came first, in 1691, and the people were housed in hulks out in the sound. Later the town was built around the dockyard. So the dockyard came first and the people followed.
The whole south-west is dependent on defence-related industry. I believe that it is the most defence-dependent region in the whole EC. In the Plymouth travel-to-work area there is a total of 25,000 defence-dependent jobs or 21 per cent. of the work force. A survey by Bristol polytechnic in May 1991 estimated that in the whole south-west region 155,000 jobs were dependent directly or indirectly on defence.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Having told the House how important the defence industry is to his area, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he supports Labour party policy to reduce defence expenditure by £6 billion, which would probably have a massive jobs impact on his area?

Mr. Jamieson: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has brought a sour note of party politics into a debate about Plymouth. My constituents have suffered for many years from Tory defence cuts. There is over 50 per cent. male unemployment in my constituency due to cuts by the Government which he supports.
Total expenditure on defence in the region is £3·38 billion per year, which is 18·8 per cent. of United Kingdom defence expenditure. Recent world events and the volatile profile of defence expenditure prove that there will be more changes in defence needs in our area. In my constituency in the 1970s over 20,000 people were employed in the dockyard. In 1986 and 1987, when my hon. Friend the Member for Workington visited the dockyard, nearly 13,000 people were employed there. There are now just over 5,000.
Constituencies in the region are suffering very much because of unemployment. In my constituency there has been a 77 per cent. rise in unemployment over the last three years. The hon. Member for Sutton quoted the rise in his constituency as 104 per cent. In other areas, such as Barnstaple, Redruth, Camborne and Torbay, there is great concern about the state of the economy. If the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) were here, he could tell us that there has been an 82 per cent. increase in unemployment in his area. If the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) were here, she could tell us that the increase in unemployment in her area is 139 per cent.

Mr. Michael Bates: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are talking about the urban development corporation and that the Labour party


strenuously opposed its establishment? Is he aware that a primary function of the urban development corporation is to sell the benefits of the city and attract inward investment? For the sake of Plymouth, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not play any part in the work of the urban development corporation, because that would not attract many people to the area.

Mr. Jamieson: I find it tiresome when hon. Members who probably do not know where Plymouth is intervene in this debate. When I met my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North the other day, he surprised me with his detailed knowledge of many roads and streets in my constituency. He probably knows my constituency much better than many of the Conservative Members who are gasping at present.
This order is a positive move forward. There have been some positive moves forward recently. Devonport Management Ltd. has done some limited work on diversification and is now repairing railway locomotive engines. At present, repairs are being made to privately owned ships in our dockyard. On Friday, I shall be visiting another company in the dockyard, Walker Wingsail, which has done excellent work in creating new jobs within the dockyard; but that work is limited and only a few jobs have been created.
I am glad that the Minister referred to Plymouth city council. In the past 18 months, that council has done more work than anyone to assist the economic regeneration in the area. It has been pro-active in helping the economy and has created co-operation among business, industry and commerce, the like of which we have not had for many years. The council must be heartily congratulated on that.
The hon. Member for Sutton will recall attending a presentation with me at which he congratulated the council on its Plymouth city challenge bid. The hon. Gentleman must admit that it was an excellent bid for the city.
The urban development corporation will provide £45 million. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that is simply the first step down the road for Plymouth and the south-west. It will take much more than putting right buildings and the decay which has taken place over many years in the areas to which I referred to bring back the number of jobs to Plymouth and the south-west which is required. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he will urgently appoint the chairman, the chief executive and the rest of the board.
I hope that not only will the board be set up urgently but that the jobs which are created in the first instance will go to people in Plymouth and the surrounding areas where the developments are to take place. In the past, those people were traditionally employed in those areas and they lost their jobs. In the constituencies of the hon. Member for Sutton and of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes), and in my constituency, there are some depressing areas of unemployment. In some areas, male unemployment is more than 50 per cent. It is a serious situation. I hope that those unemployed people will be the first to find jobs.
I hope that this order is the first step down the road and that the Minister will tell us that he has further plans for the use of the buildings, the growth of the urban development corporation and more funding. I hope that

we will see an announcement of the establishment of a regional development agency which will not only embrace the difficulties and problems in Plymouth. I hope that we can look forward to not only the redevelopment of Plymouth but to the much wider development of the whole of the south-west.

Mr. David Harris: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) found the visit of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) of some assistance. I wish that I could report such a happy experience in my constituency. When the hon. Member for Workington came to Hale in my constituency, he held up a development which has still not taken place. The hon. Gentleman was aided and abetted by the Liberal Democrat chairman of the city council planning committee. That visit held up the development and destroyed the prospect of jobs.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not even know of the existence of the place that I am alleged to have visited—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the wrong one.

Mr. Harris: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman—I thought that he did. I am sorry about that; I am attributing to the hon. Gentleman even more mischief than he usually makes around the country. It must have been one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues of like-minded intent. I wholeheartedly withdraw the remark.
My credentials—if I have any for this debate—are that for five years I had the privilege of representing Plymouth, albeit after Cornwall, in the European Parliament as the Member for Cornwall and Plymouth. In those days the Devonport dockyard was much larger, as the hon. Member for Devonport said, but the writing was on the wall for maintaining a dockyard of that size and that number of employees. It was clear—

Mr. Jamieson: It was not.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Member for Devonport says that it was not, but it was. It was recognised in the city at that time that a dockyard of that size could not be maintained. All that has happened since then has borne that out, partly because of this country's shrinking defence capacity.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), I was disappointed by the response of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to the central issue of which dockyard would have the role of refitting Trident. Despite the hon. Gentleman's attempt to fudge the issue, it is clear that Devonport and Rosyth cannot both service Trident. If the hon. Gentleman is now saying that it is Labour party policy that the refitting work on Trident should go to both dockyards, I will give way to let him make that position clear.

Mr. Jamieson: Give us the Government policy.

Mr. Harris: The Government policy is a two-yard solution, but not—as I understand it—to have both yards servicing Trident. If that is the Labour party's policy, I am more than happy to sit down and let the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North clarify the position.

Mr. Henderson: I did not wish to take up any more of the time of the House. I thought that I had already clarified our position. The Labour party's policy is clear: there is a


need to maintain options because of the strategic importance of Trident, which means the maintenance of both Rosyth and Plymouth. Both must have the capability of dealing with Trident, but they will clearly have to attract other work to make themselves viable in a wider context.

Mr. Harris: I do not want to labour the issue, but I still do not think that the hon. Gentleman has answered the central point as to whether he believes that both dockyards can share the work of servicing Trident. I do not believe for one minute that they can. I therefore say unhesitatingly that the dockyard best equipped to carry out that function is Devonport. That must be the conclusion of any independent survey of the matter.

Mr. George Kynoch: As I am an independent person, I am sure that my hon. Friend would not expect me to stay seated having heard his comment. He must accept that both yards will put in a case for winning the contract. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want there to be fair battle between the two. That is why the decision has been delayed. I am sure that Rosyth will win the contract.

Mr. Harris: I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said, except his last point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said, we should have a fair fight. I am sure that the result will be that Devonport will win. However, let us move on from that contentious issue—[Interruption.] I am being goaded to attack the Liberal Democrats, but I will not do that.
I agree with some of what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said. All the parties in the south-west, including the Liberal Democrats, agree that we need some form of development agency which can operate more widely than the urban development corporation proposed for Plymouth. Devon and Cornwall need their own development agency and the funds and the means to compete against the unfair competition from Wales and the Welsh Development Agency. I endorse what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said about that.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, I would not like it to go out from the debate that somehow Plymouth, with all its difficulties, is in a hopeless position, because it is not. Plymouth has marvellous advantages. It is a vibrant and confident city, and from the time of Drake it has always looked outwards. Although in the past it has had an unhealthy over-reliance on the dockyard, in recent years it has gone a long way to try to correct that dependence.
In my five years as a Euro-MP, there was inward investment in industrial estates such as Estover. Firms incorporating modern technology came to the modern factories on those estates. I speak not just as a former Member of the European Parliament for Cornwall and Plymouth but as the Member of this Parliament for a Cornish constituency, albeit the one furthest from Plymouth.
The prosperity of parts of Cornwall is greatly bound up with the prosperity or otherwise of Plymouth and we have a vested interest, albeit an indirect one, in what happens there. What is good for Plymouth is certainly good for the parts of Cornwall that surround it. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Taylor) will agree on that. The wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) is recovering from a

serious operation, which is why my hon. Friend is not present for the debate, but he would also agree, because a large number of his constituents work in Plymouth, many of them in the dockyard.
I wish Plymouth well. I am sure that the corporation will benefit not only Plymouth but Cornwall, especially south-east Cornwall. In the context of confidence, we must look to the strengths of Plymouth, one of which is the transformation of its polytechnic to a university. That is another asset, not just for Plymouth but for a wider area. I heartily welcome the Government's action, which will benefit not just Plymouth but Cornwall and the south-west.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I shall be as brief as I possibly can.
It is of considerable importance to the economy of Devon and Cornwall that Plymouth is given this new lease of life. It is unfortunate that there has been an acrimonious tinge to tonight's debate, because in recent months there has been all-party support on many issues affecting Plymouth and the economy of Devon and Cornwall and I regret that to some extent that has dissolved this evening.
My constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) and for Truro (Mr. Taylor) are directly and indirectly affected by what happens to the dockyard and to the wider economy of the city of Plymouth. It is estimated that some 30,000 jobs will be at risk if the dockyard goes down. It is part of the engine of recovery for a vulnerable economy with bad unemployment that the city should receive all the help that it can get.
My constituency has two of the top 10 unemployment black spots in the United Kingdom. We travel from the constituency to get jobs wherever we can—I suppose that that is why I come here.
Cornwall is highly dependent on defence-related industries, which affect not only the south-east of the county, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) pointed out. Some 4·5 per cent. of the Cornish gross domestic product is dependent on defence-related industries, and the south-west's research centres demonstrate that 5 per cent. of the total of Devon and Cornwall's gross domestic product is directly affected by Devonport.
That is why hon. Members in all parts of the House are so dismayed at the extent to which the Government have procrastinated over the Devonport decision. It is not that there has simply been more thought about it; they have repeatedly returned to the parties for support. In the Christmas Adjournment debate, I pointed out that it was totally unfair to keep a loyal work force on tenterhooks at Devonport and, indeed, at Rosyth. Since then, the Ministry of Defence has given the parties another chance to consider the decision; what was previously a Dutch auction has become a double Dutch auction, and it is time that the Government made up their mind.
Reference has been made to the resourcing of the urban development corporation, but the economic context in which the UDC will have to operate is clearly critical. In that regard, I wish to refer to EC funding.
As the Minister will know, his colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry recently made a bid to the European Commission for objective 1 status for Devon and Cornwall. The inclusion of all of Devon and Cornwall


automatically prevented the bid from being successful. On 3 March, in answer to my written question, the Minister made it clear that had Cornwall alone or Cornwall and Plymouth been able to make the bid, they almost certainly would have achieved objective 1 status. If that were done now, after devaluation, which has reduced our GDP figures, it would be below the 75 per cent. threshold. It is critical not only that we have the UDC, but that we take advantage of all the funding that we can get.

Mr. Harris: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the Commission determines the units put forward from Britain to qualify for objective 1 status. It was at the insistence of the Commission that Devon and Cornwall were lumped together. I heartily agree with the hon. Gentleman, but it was the fault of the Commission and not the Government.

Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he is incorrect. The answer that I received from the Economic Secretary made it quite clear first, that
the final decision is to be taken by the Council of Ministers" —[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 163]
and, secondly, that the bid was put in for Devon and Cornwall and the possibility of a separate bid for Cornwall was not even considered. Until now, nobody has chosen what may well be the right option—to link Plymouth and Cornwall—which would almost certainly qualify to receive the support of the EC structural funds that are essential to ensure that the UDC is not simply a drop in the ocean but the beginning of something more substantial.
There are three important options, and I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will support the proper funding of development agencies in Plymouth and the wider Cornish and Devon economy.
Much reference has been made to Sir Francis Drake. It is not widely known that he was actually a Member of this House. He represented the constituency of Bossiney, which is now in my constituency. He demonstrated that sometimes one has to stick together with the people in one's own area against the London Government. Indeed, he spent more time attacking the London Government than attacking the Spaniards.

Mr. Greg Knight (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): Rubbish.

Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read history or studied the career of Sir Francis Drake. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he was an effective buccaneer on behalf of his part of the country.
During recent months, there has been unanimity among Members of Parliament in the south-west, from all parties, that we need more support and investment to enable our economy to turn the corner. We are still at the bottom of a very severe slump. Conservative central office pointed out that that was why the Conservatives lost so badly to the Liberal Democrats. It is extremely important for the Government to show that they are now determined to pull our economy out of that slump.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. John Redwood): We have had a good-humoured debate, despite both the lateness of the hour and what

happened beforehand. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) accused me of arrogance when I offered more time for the House to hear the views of other hon. Members, who had important points to make, and offered to answer their points at the end of the debate, if time permitted. It is a shame that he has not been here to listen to the debate and to the answers to some of the points that he said were important and needed discussion.
A number of hon. Members raised important issues. It is right that we should press on quickly once the House has approved the motion tonight. I hope that, within a few days, I can announce the name of the new chairman of the urban development council. I also hope to press on quickly with the appointment of the full board of 10 members, including the chairman. I hope that we will reach rapid agreement with local councils. We wish to co-operate fully with them. We are proposing that five of the 10 board members should be representatives of the two councils concerned. Timing is very important and we will move forward rapidly. We are also in the process of drafting suitable advertisements for the post of chief executive. Once the chairman is announced, he will want rapidly to appoint a suitable chief executive.
I am glad that there was wide-ranging support from a number of hon. Members for the proposal in general, including the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—who I am glad to see back in his place—from the Opposition, after a little prompting, and from my hon. Friends, who have been strong in their support and who have worked hard to ensure that the UDC comes into being.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) adopted his usual line of welcoming public money but wanting to know whether there was enough of it—and then producing further proposals for even more money and even bigger bodies. There is a new Labour belief in regional non-elected quangos, in addition to the regional committees that the Opposition have also proposed. They want both regional committees and regional development quangos, but as always they have not said who would pay for them, by how much taxes would have to rise, and how the bodies would avoid becoming unduly bureaucratic.
We are proposing a formula that works—a UDC formula that has brought great benefits to many parts of the country through the 11 UDCs that are up and flourishing. That formula will harness the energies of the private sector to the public money that is available. It recognises the interrelationship between property development, land clearance, the creation of new jobs, the attraction of enterprise and the commitment that that can make to regenerating and improving the local community.
The hon. Gentleman and I have often debated the nature of urban regeneration, and I think that we agreed that is about more than property redevelopment and development. However, I think that, in his more honest moments, he would concede that property development plays an important part in creating the new environment in which jobs can materialise, and that jobs are important in giving hope, life and confidence to communities. That is one of the prime tasks of the UDC.
We have set out signs of the funding over a five-year period for the UDC from Government sources. There are land transfers to it in the areas identified on the map that is attached to the proposed order.
That will not be the sole funding for improving opportunities in Plymouth. We have already made available additional moneys through many programmes. Recently, £5 million in the form of city grant has been paid for projects in Plymouth. There has been derelict, land grant. Urban partnership money—£1·8 million, which will lever in other substantial sums—will produce much-needed road improvements, which in turn could trigger private investment. In addition, £2·5 million of estate action money has recently been passed to Plymouth, and more is to come. Under a variety of Government programmes, in addition to the UDC, money has been made available. I am sure that in future Plymouth will continue to benefit from the programmes that we are operating.
In addition, there are the substantial sums that are going to the county council and the city council. The councils have a significant role to play in important programmes that are related to the future prosperity of Plymouth and the adjacent region. It is—[Interruption ] The hon. Member for Workington asserts from a sedentary position that funding has been cut. He should study the figures. He will find that in recent years there has been a massive increase in Government funding of local government, and that has applied to Devon and Plymouth as it has to the rest of the country.
The hon. Gentleman laughs, because he knows that billions upon billions of extra pounds have been given in grants to local authorities throughout the country to strengthen the core services of education, training, social services and planning, which are so important to successful communities and which we thoroughly support. We believe also in getting value for that money and in introducing important policies to improve quality and efficiency. We shall ensure that the money is well spent.
I had no sympathy for the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North when he went into another of his tirades about the London Docklands development corporation. It is not a relevant subject for this debate but his illustration was wide of the mark. The area involved is totally different from that in Plymouth. His criticisms of the LDDC, as always, were ill based and ill founded. The hon. Gentleman still does not understand that there is a great triumph throughout the docklands area and that there are five or six distinct parts of east London, several of which have been developed in an excellent way to produce affordable housing, jobs and inward investment. All this has transformed the area, which had been desecrated by Labour councils for years before.

Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister think that Canary Wharf has been a success? Would he want to repeat the scheme in Plymouth?

Mr. Redwood: It is much better to have large new buildings on that site than derelict and rundown docks with no economic function. I ask the hon. Gentleman to come with me to the area in five years time. I think that he will find then that there is a great success. It is one that will bring much prosperity and life to the area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has worked tirelessly on behalf of his constituents and the city. I was flattered by his remarks, but I would not wish to suggest that I should stand alongside Sir Francis, who made such an important contribution to the life of the nation. I shall, of course,

stand up for Plymouth, as I have in recent months. I believe that there is an important job of work to be done in the city and that we can do it in partnership with the people there, with suitable Government funding along the lines that I have outlined and identified in the House tonight and on other occasions elsewhere.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton is right to say that the private sector is vital in Plymouth. It is clear that it can make a vital contribution. I welcome what it has done already. I am sure that the UDC will be asking it to do far more over the next five years as it goes about its life.
The UDC must listen carefully to local opinion. I am sure that it will welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion about the area of Turnchapel. There is the crucial question of how much of the land adjacent to it should be open space and what parts of the site should be identified for suitable development to create the jobs and the new prosperity that my hon. Friend wishes to see. We shall ask the board to be sensitive to local views. With five out of 10 of its members being local councillors, we hope that it, too, will want to follow the process through. Its members should know the local area and they should want to listen carefully to the local people.
Wherever possible, the UDC should employ local talent labour. It must seek value for its money, but I am sure that many in Plymouth will be willing and able to fulfil the roles that the UDC will need to have fulfilled as it goes about spending its money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) has been most assiduous in putting forward her constituents' views. I am sure that the House understands that her special position as one of your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker, prevents her from making a direct statement in tonight's debate.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) welcomes the proposal. I can assure him that this is a first but important step. It is one of several steps as we live through the life of the UDC, which will be developing plans and taking many steps which will not only generate prosperity for its immediate area but will help in the regeneration and renewed prosperity of the adjacent areas to its own territory. This is a big step, which the House should welcome.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) is a keen supporter of the measure. I agree that Plymouth has a great deal to recommend it as a place for inward investment and for self-generated creativity and business development and as a place which can do a great deal for itself given a little help from the UDC and the Government programmes that we have already identified.
I shall be working with the UDC to ensure that Plymouth's name, skills and opportunities are well known to investors from Britain and elsewhere. I am keep to see Plymouth restored to higher levels of employment and lower levels of unemployment than are currently being experienced, and I am sure that this initiative is an important step along that road.
I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Taylor) welcomed the proposal, although he mainly spoke on other subjects. Of course, a thriving dockyard is important to Plymouth and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already outlined the Government's position in principle on the two dockyards and will be announcing in due course the other part of the decision which the House is keen to know for the sake of Plymouth and our naval dockyards generally.
I trust that the House will welcome the order tonight. I urge every hon. Member to support it and, at this late hour, it would be a good idea if it went through without a Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Plymouth Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1993, dated 20th January 1993, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

Sex Tourism (South-east Asia)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Mr. Nigel Evans: We move from Plymouth to Thailand. Despite the late hour, this is an important debate and I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the subject. It would have been debated much earlier but for some of the most appalling antics that I have seen in the House since I was elected on 9 April 1992.
The fact that this is an important issue has been recognised by the very fact that 138 Members of Parliament have signed early-day motion 1168 on sex tourism in Thailand, asking that action should be taken to stamp it out.
This is my first Adjournment debate. I could have chosen almost any subject—perhaps one closer to my home of the Ribble valley rather than something that is going on in Thailand many miles away. However, I am grateful to have this opportunity to air such an important subject tonight. I know that many people will read the report of this debate in Hansard in days to come and will take heed of what I and the Minister have to say.
The whole issue is enmeshed in corruption, drugs, violence, power and perversion. Sex tourism is big money. It is seedy and sordid. It is the perverted preying on the poor. A whole generation is in danger of being wiped out by AIDS.
Thousands of women and children are involved. Independent estimates vary from between 200,000 and 800,000 children being involved in prostitution. That is an astounding figure. Even the much lower estimate of 30,000 child prostitutes that the Government hide behind is amazing.
Children as young as seven years of age have been involved in prostitution in Thailand, and with AIDS rife in the area, sex tourism is not just a carefree fling but a death sentence for thousands in the region.
Thailand has always been tarred with the reputation of easy sex, but it is now scarred with child exploitation and forced prostitutes. How do the young become involved in that lethal trade? Money inevitably has a role, but so have absolute poverty and the lack of education.
Some parents feel forced to sell their children into prostitution, to raise money to fund their drug addiction. The Thai Government have come down hard on foreigners who try to smuggle drugs into the country. I only wish that they would come down equally hard on foreigners visiting Thailand to prey on the children of that country.
Villages in the north are being depopulated. Those villages are poor, and have nothing to offer their young. Consequently, those youngsters are attracted by the bright lights of the south, just as youngsters are attracted to cities in any other part of the world. Eventually, those young people are sucked into child prostitution.
Parents in the north see the opportunity to raise lump sums—money that they could otherwise only dream about —by selling their children into prostitution. The money is spent on drugs or on the consumer products that they covet. That gives rise to the prospect of pimps moving in.
There is a premium on young children. Some visitors to Thailand naively imagine that child prostitutes will not have AIDS. Nothing could be further from the truth.


Whereas older prostitutes may resist certain perverted practices, younger children will not. HIV passes more easily through the blood stream than anything else, so if bleeding takes place—and the chances are that it will with young children—the virus will be transmitted.
That leads in turn to another problem. Those who have contracted diseases are compelled to borrow money from pimps to pay for hospital treatment. They find themselves locked into a life style and hooked by their pimps for the foreseeable future.
Tourism in Thailand has boomed in recent years. In the 1960s only 180,000 visited the country on holiday. Today, the figure is 5 million. Rice used to be Thailand's big earner, but now tourism is the No. 1 earner—and the foreign exchange it generates is extremely valuable.
In 1980, the then deputy Prime Minister, Boonchoo Rojanasthian, spoke at a national conference of provincial governors and urged them to boost tourist numbers by encouraging
certain entertainments, which some of you may find disgusting and embarrassing because they are related to sexual pleasure.
That is an amazing declaration from a deputy Prime Minister, but those were his words. As tourism increased, so did the sex trade.
The supply of Thai children for sex is supplemented by children from Burma, Laos and China, where sex tourism is seen as a means of escaping from the poverty of their home economies. Kidnapping goes on as well, to ensure a constant supply of young people to the area. In the 1980s, when one of the brothels was burnt down, the bodies of five young children were discovered handcuffed to beds. This appalling traffic of flesh and blood meets the demands of paedophiles from the west. We export our perverts to prey on innocent children.
Some of the children who try to escape from their brothel prisons are beaten and tortured, and some are killed. Some are drugged to make them compliant. Sudrat S. Srisang, the project consultant of the ecumenical coalition on third-world tourism, has stated:
consumption of sexual favours has become so open and crude that the demand for new varieties of sexual fantasy inevitably arises. Engaging in acts of intercourse with minors has become the rage.
There are the pimps on the make; the compliant parents with topsy-turvy values, who sell their kith and kin for a lump sum; and a system that outlaws such acts—for they are against the law in Thailand—but is only too willing to turn a blind eye to their continuation. There are collusions between some local police and politicians—parasites on the people. It is a gruesome corruption, of which children are the victims. Even the Thai Prime Minister, Chuan Leekpai, noted in a speech last year that the problem of child prostitution stemmed from the collusion of police officials with influential local figures.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will my hon. Friend join our own Prime Minister in condemning child pornography, which promotes the activity that he is describing?

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Like my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members, I visited the exhibition of pornography that was held in the House not long ago, and I was amazed at some of the things that I saw: I had never thought that such

things went on. Unfortunately, they lead to the perversion and corruption of people, some of whom then go out to Thailand to satisfy their desires.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Is not the key problem with child pornography in this country the fact that, although there are heavy penalties for trafficking, the penalty for possession is still only a modest fine? It is not an arrestable offence.

Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I know that he feels very strongly about the subject; he has spoken about it in the House many times.

Mr. Michael Bates: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the House's attention. Many of us were previously unaware of this horrid and depraved practice, and we are immensely grateful to him: Parliament is well served by his action.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that this matter is being debated at such a late hour is entirely due to petty practices on the part of Opposition Members? Given that they knew that matters of such gravity would be discussed later, it is deplorable that they should choose to focus on other issues.

Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he fights very hard to raise the moral values that, unfortunately, have fallen so readily in our own country. He has made his point only too well; this debate should indeed have been held a long time ago.
In a letter to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) on 11 February, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad)—hit the nail on the head when he said that the difficulty with the problem was not education but enforcement. As I said earlier, many of the things that go on in Thailand are against the law, but too many people are turning a blind eye to what is happening because there is money to be made.
Unfortunately, some of the children who have been sucked into prostitution are arrested one night and then, on payment of a very small fine to the police, are released the next day and go straight back into child prostitution. Action should be taken to stamp that out.
We are signatories to article 34 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. It calls for international co-operation to protect children worldwide from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. This issue—which I believe has appalled so many of us who are here this evening, and many other colleagues who have spoken to me about what is going on in Thailand—ought to be raised at every opportunity by Ministers and officials with the Thai Government.
The Thai Government must beef up their laws. They must also enforce their laws on this abuse. We must give as much assistance as we possibly can to the Thai police and the Thai authorities. Our police expertise should be shared with the Thai authorities. I know that we cannot police the world. Some people say that we are not so good at policing our own country. I believe, however, that we ought to share the knowledge and expertise that we have built up over a long period with the Thai authorities.
One of the first things that we should do is make available to the Thais a list of all known paedophiles so that these perverts can be prevented from going into that


country. Germany will probably introduce a law shortly to enable the Germans to try people in Germany who are suspected of having sex with children in another country.
If that becomes law in Germany, can I ask the Minister to monitor what happens there, see whether we can learn from that process and, if so, introduce a similar law in this country? If any of our paedophiles then went to Thailand, got caught and were deported to this country, they could be tried in this country for that offence.
Without any shadow of a doubt, all the agencies—whether they be non-governmental, the Churches, Interpol or the police authorities—need to get together to make a concerted effort to ensure that this depravity and child corruption is stamped out as soon as possible in Thailand. It is an absolute nightmare for the children who live in Thailand at this moment.
The world seems to unite when it comes to tackling the problem of saving the Amazon rain forest. Can we not therefore unite to save the children of Thailand?

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): It gives me particular pleasure to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this very important debate. Apart from it being a very humane and proper subject to discuss, my hon. Friend is also a near parliamentary neighbour of mine, and a fellow colleague from Lancashire. I felt that he did the House a singular service in painting a vivid and moving word picture of this vile trade and by referring to some of the unsavoury and sometimes almost unspeakable things that happen to innocent children who get caught up in this disgusting trade.
In preparing myself for the debate, I watched the "Dispatches" television programme. It provided a singular service by showing vividly just exactly what is involved. My hon. Friend mentioned the recent exhibition, which I too saw. What he may have seen is perhaps not as bad as it can be, in terms of the way that paedophiles use this type of information. I visibly winced when I saw other material of this nature. Therefore, I understand the enormous sensitivities that this issue evokes. The very fact that 138 hon. Members have already signed early-day motion 1361 is a genuine sign of how seriously the House takes this issue.
I was glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Gallie), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) were in the Chamber for the debate, and that they lent their support to our hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned concerted action on a worldwide basis. It is important to put in context article 34 of the United Nations's convention on the rights of the child, which this country ratified in 1991 and which requires parties to take
all appropriate national, bilateral, and multilateral measures to prevent:

a. the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
b. the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
c. the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials."

Although we signed up to the resolution, I must say that it is for individual states to determine what measures are

appropriate to discharge that commitment, and the convention does not stipulate that extended criminal jurisdiction, which has been mentioned in this regard, must be introduced.
The United Kingdom has not been complacent, but has raised the issue at an international level. Indeed, at last year's Commission on Human Rights, we co-sponsored a resolution implementing a programme of action for the prevention of the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. At last year's United Nations General Assembly, we introduced a resolution on the problem of street children. It was adopted by consensus, and we are following up both resolutions at this year's session of the Commission on Human Rights, which began on 1 February. We have done something solid in taking up the problem.
My hon. Friend mentioned the size of the problem, which is notoriously difficult to predict. Worrying about which figure we choose should not diminish the seriousness of the problem, because if only one child is involved in this vile trade, that is one child too many.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to what was happening in Germany, and rightly suggested that the German Government's action should be monitored. I can give him an assurance that we shall monitor the German Government's action in that regard, but part of the reason they have taken the action they have is that they are constitutionally prohibited from extraditing their own nationals. They are unable to do what we would do, which is to use our own extradition procedures to send anyone charged with such vile crimes in Thailand back to Thailand to face justice there. We would also use the various powers that we have to help in getting evidence if someone were to be extradited. I shall spend a moment talking about the judicial co-operation at our disposal for help in these circumstances.
We have taken steps to aid the enforcement of criminal law where there is an international element. We passed the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, which specifically enables us to assist criminal investigations in foreign countries by arranging for the service of summonses and other legal documents in this country, for statements to be taken from witnesses or for other evidence to be obtained here. The Act also provides for a person in custody to travel abroad to assist in proceedings and, in certain cases, for the search of premises here and the seizure of documents or other evidence. In that way, we are able to assist other countries to enforce their domestic law but, in the final analysis, the main responsibility must rest with them—in this case, the Thai authorities.
I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do all we can to assist, but we should not lose sight of the fact that it is for each country to enact its own laws and to ensure that they are properly enforced, a telling point raised by my hon. Friend.
In watching "Dispatches", I took some comfort from the fact that the Thai Prime Minister twice made clear his personal concern about and commitment to dealing with the problem. If our extradition proceedings are to be brought into play, the question of getting evidence and finding persons involved in the vile trade and bringing charges against them is an important first step in the process.
Some people have suggested that we might, for example, do what the Germans do. But in the few moments remaining at my disposal, I must tell my hon.


Friend that, if we were to do so, there would be serious problems in evidential terms. He will understand that, in this country, considerable strictures govern the gathering and presentation of evidence in our courts, and it would therefore be difficult to bring cases in the simple way suggested. As I have already said, however, we shall monitor what happens in Germany.
I want to make it clear to the House that, although I have emphasised our work within the United Nations, our efforts to give prominence to the matter do not stop there. The Government have taken extensive steps to ensure that the Thai Government are made fully aware of our concern about the sexual exploitation of children through prostitution. We have emphasised our willingness to assist with prosecutions where appropriate. Our ambassador has made several representations about prostitution to the Thai Prime Minister, and has assured him that his Government is urgently considering ways in which to tackle the problem. In addition, the Thai Government have made public their concern and their resolve to take effective action.
We shall, of course, continue to bring to bear whatever pressure is appropriatre in an effort to ensure that the issue is properly dealt with. The fact that the House is having a debate on the subject should assist that process.

Dr. Spink: Will the Minister take this opportunity to make the public totally aware of the fact that to go abroad and indulge in such activity is illegal and puts people at grave risk, not only from the law in this country and in Thailand, but in terms of AIDS and venereal disease? My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) strongly made that point.

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend raises an important point, but although a debate such as this, if properly publicised and used, can serve to inform the public, one of the problems is that around the world there is no uniform code on the age bracket at which such offences occur. That is one of the dimensions of the problem involved in bringing people to book in this country for offences that they may have committed abroad, when there are differences between the legal codes. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend makes a valid point, especially with reference to AIDS. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, too, drew out that aspect extremely clearly—and anyone who happened to watch the television programmes on the subject could have been left in no doubt about it.
I hope that what I have said in the limited time available has conveyed to my hon. Friend the fact that we take the subject very seriously, and that we shall put the full weight of our extradition procedures and our international co-operation at the disposal of the Thai authorities should they be able to bring charges. But I lay particular emphasis on what we can do to reinforce their resolve to tackle the problem, both through the work that we have undertaken in the United Nations and through the work that our ambassador is doing in Thailand.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the matter. We shall monitor the situation closely.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Two o'clock.